VOLUME 2 APPENDICES FEBRUARY 2009 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project Environmental Assessment MP 08_0077
Appendix B Consultation Materials Appendix B – Part 1
Phase 1-3 Consultation Materials AGL Gas-Fired Power Station Leafs Gully Development
Social Impact Assessment
Prepared for
The Australian Gas Light Company
July 2006
Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd P O Box 30, Bowral NSW 2576 * Tel: 02 4862 3936* Fax: 02 4862 3936* Email: [email protected] AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Contents Executive Summary...... 5 Background...... 5 Methodology...... 5 Social Context...... 6 Community Issues...... 7 Mitigation...... 8 1. Introduction ...... 10 1.1 Site Selection ...... 10 1.2 Report Structure...... 11 2. Methodology...... 13 2.1 Overview...... 13 2.2 Social Assessment Program for the Leaf’s Gully Project...... 14 2.2.1 Consultation Program...... 15 3. Social Profile ...... 19 3.1 Project Background ...... 19 3.2 City of Campbelltown Profile ...... 20 3.2.1 Local History & Trends ...... 24 3.2.2 Socio-economic Characteristics & Trends ...... 25 3.2.3 Governance ...... 31 3.2.4 Community Issues...... 32 3.2.5 Project Implications...... 40 3.3 Shire of Wollondilly Profile...... 41 3.3.1 Geographic Location & Characteristics ...... 41 3.3.2 Local History & Trends ...... 45 3.3.3 Population Characteristics & Trends ...... 45 3.3.4 Governance ...... 49 3.3.5 Community Issues...... 50 3.3.6 Project Implications...... 52 4. Community Attitudes Towards the Project...... 54 4.1 Phase Two (Scoping) – Issue Themes ...... 54 4.1.1 Awareness of the Proposed Project and Choice of Site...... 55 4.1.2 Environmental Impacts: Visual Amenity, Air Quality, Noise and Water...... 56 4.1.3 Impacts on Land Values and Rezoning Potential...... 57 4.1.4 “Buffer Zones” and Greenscaping of the Leafs Gully Site...... 57 4.1.5 Operational Potential and Future Plant Expansion...... 58 4.1.6 Other Issues: Road Traffic, Mine Subsidence, Public Safety, Flora and Fauna ...... 59 4.1.7 Potential for Opposition...... 59 4.2 Phase Four (EA Feedback and Strategy Development)...... 60 4.2.1 Operating Times ...... 60 4.2.2 Visual Amenity ...... 60 4.2.3 Noise Impacts ...... 61 4.2.4 Air Quality...... 61 4.2.5 Traffic Impacts ...... 61
Page 2 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
4.2.6 Environmental Impacts, Water Management and Revegetation...... 61 4.2.7 Other Issues ...... 62 5. Economic Contribution...... 63 5.1 Economic Assessment...... 63 6. Project Related Change...... 64 7. Impact Management ...... 65 7.1 Strategies ...... 65 7.1.1 Flora and Fauna ...... 65 7.1.2 Traffic Impacts ...... 65 7.1.3 Visual Amenity ...... 66 7.1.4 Noise Impacts ...... 66 7.1.5 Water ...... 66 7.1.6 Air Quality...... 67 7.1.7 Aboriginal and European Cultural Heritage...... 67 8. Monitoring...... 67 9. Conclusion...... 68 10. References...... 69
Tables
Table 2.1: Social Assessment Mechanisms and Methods...... 15 Table 2.2: Consultations mechanisms by stakeholder group ...... 18 Table 3.1: Trends in summary statistics, Campbelltown LGA and NSW ...... 26 Table 3.2: Household income quartile groups, Campbelltown LGA and Sydney Statistical division, 2001...... 28 Table 3.3: Changes in dwelling types, Campbelltown, LGA and NSW state, 2001 ...... 30 Table 3.4: Summary statistics 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA-excluding Appin . 46 Table 3.5: Trends in building approvals in the Shire of Wollondilly LGA ...... 47 Table 3.6: Trends in Age-structure from 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA excluding Appin...... 48 Figures
Figure A: The Social Impact Assessment Process ...... 6 Figure B: Leafs Gully Power Project: Frequency of Issues Raised Phase 2 Consultations...... 8 Figure 1.1: Location of Leafs Gully farm (highlighted in red), Site of the Proposed AGL Gas Turbine Power Plant...... 10 Figure 1.2: Aerial Photograph of Leafs Gully farm indicating the plant footprint...... 11 Figure 2.1: The Social Impact Assessment Process ...... 14 Figure 3.1: Suburb map of City of Campbelltown ...... 22 Figure 3.2: Map of electoral division of Macarthur ...... 23 Figure 3.3: Map of State electoral division of Camden...... 24 Figure 3.4: Age structure of Campbelltown LGA, Sydney Statistical Division and NSW state, 2001 ...... 27 Figure 3.5: Changes in age structure of Campbelltown LGA from 1996 to 2001...... 27
Page 3 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Figure 3.6: Weekly household income, Campbelltown LGA and Sydney Statistical Division, 2001 ...... 28 Figure 3.7: Change in weekly household income (quartiles), Campbelltown LGA, 1996 to 2001 ...... 29 Figure 3.8: Qualifications attained, City of Campbelltown and Sydney Statistical Division, 2001 ...... 29 Figure 3.9: Percent of change in dwelling types, Campbelltown, LGA and NSW state, 2001 ...... 31 Figure 3.10: Media review of Campbelltown...... 34 Figure 3.11 Trends in road injuries and crashes in Campbelltown LGA ...... 36 Figure 3.12: Map of Sydney metropolitan growth centres...... 38 Figure 3.13: Map of South West Sydney metropolitan growth centre...... 39 Figure 3.14: Location Map of Wollondilly Shire ...... 42 Figure 3.15: Map of federal electoral division of Hume...... 43 Figure 3.16: Map of State electoral division of Southern Highlands ...... 44 Figure 3.17: Percent of change in dwellings from 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA excluding Appin...... 46 Figure 3.18: Trends in Age-structure from 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA excluding Appin...... 49 Figure 3.19: Media Review of Wollondilly ...... 51 Figure 4.1: Leafs Gully Power Project: Frequency of Issues Raised Phase 2 Consultations.. 54
Appendices
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions: AGL Leafs Gully Power Project Phase Two Scoping (Identification of Issues)...... 71 Appendix B: Stakeholder Consultations by Category: Phases Two (Scoping) and Four (EA Feedback) May and July 2006...... 73 Appendix C: Community Information Sheet Number 1 75 Appendix D: Community Information Sheets Number 2 79
Page 4 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary provides an overview of the Social Impact Assessment process undertaken by Coakes Consulting for the proposed AGL Leafs Gully Gas-Turbine Power Project. The summary highlights the key aspects of the assessment process, the key issues raised through the assessment, and the mitigation strategies developed by the company and potential future planning in respect to ongoing community engagement programs.
Background
After assessment of a number of possible site options, AGL selected the property currently known as the Leafs Gully Farm as a highly viable site for a gas-turbine power plant due to the presence of all supporting infrastructure and locality to the Greater Sydney area. Following the completion of initial feasibility studies, an option to purchase the site was obtained and in November / December 2005 the company announced its intention to proceed with planning approvals for the proposed project.
Methodology
In early 2006, AGL engaged Coakes Consulting to conduct a full social assessment for the project. The objectives of the social assessment were to:
1. Analyse and assess the social context of the region, focusing on demographics, social change, regional economy, governance, and areas of community concern or priority;
2. Inform community and key stakeholders of the proposed project and the associated approvals process;
3. Seek community and stakeholder input on the proposal, and provide opportunities for questions or issues to be raised;
4. Ensure community and stakeholders are informed of the outcomes of the Environmental Assessment studies and mitigation measures proposed;
5. Assess and recommend strategies to address the issues raised.
The social assessment program for the Leaf’s Gully Project took a phased approach and involved a variety of secondary data review and community involvement methods. These phases are illustrated in Figure A below. Stakeholders were identified through a community networking approach to ensure a representation of stakeholder views associated with the project. This technique involves a process called ‘snowball sampling’ where stakeholders are identified through a review of secondary data sources e.g. Community Service directories, title and internet searches and through the involvement process. Stakeholders included:
Landholders/tenants in proximity to the proposal;
Local Business groups;
Environmental groups;
Aboriginal groups;
Page 5 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Local and State Government agencies; and
Industry Groups
Figure A: The Social Impact Assessment Process
Two phases of formal consultation were conducted with stakeholders in May 2006 and July 2006 as part of the social assessment program. These phases were aimed at ensuring that all stakeholders were informed of the project parameters, the outcomes of the Environmental and Social Assessment process, and given ample opportunity to have input into the project throughout the assessment process.
In total, 68 participants took part in the consultation process, 40 in round 1, and 28 in round two. Consultations mostly took the form of one-on-one or group presentations. At the conclusion of round 1 consultation phase, feedback on community issues, concerns and questions was provided to AGL who then incorporated this feedback into the various Environmental Assessment studies. For round two of the consultations, the AGL Project Manager attended all consultations in order to address questions and provide stakeholders with a comprehensive review of the EA’s.
In addition to the direct consultations, two Community Information Sheets were produced and widely circulated throughout the community. In total 5,500 of each of the two CIS’s were distributed to the neighbouring communities of Appin, St Helen’s Park, and Rosemeadow.
Social Context
The Leafs Gully site is located at Gilead, 4.6 kilometres north of Appin, and within the jurisdiction of the City of Campbelltown. Campbelltown is a rapidly expanding urban centre and in recent years has experienced a changing population profile. With relatively low land values compared to other parts of Sydney, the area has become attractive to young families, however expansion is inhibited by limited employment opportunities. The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (Department of Planning, 2005) identified the City of
Page 6 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Liverpool as the South West Urban Growth centre, with Campbelltown earmarked for retail and commercial development to encourage regional employment growth.
Gilead has, from time to time, been regarded as having urban development potential, a view that is reflected in the landholders consultations conducted for the Leafs Gully project. However, in December 1993, development for the area was rejected by the State Government on the grounds of locality and possible impacts on the Nepean River.
The Leafs Gully farm sits close to the border of the Shire of Wollondilly. Wollondilly’s profile varies from Campbelltown’s in several significant ways: land values and property prices have not followed the broader Sydney area, with some parts of Wollondilly experiencing a price slump. Community attitudes to development are mixed, with some development welcomed because of its potential to positively influence land values; some of the development in the town of Appin has been insensitive to the historic context of the town. Media analysis also suggests there is a high focus on the environment in the Wollondilly Shire, including the National importance of the area to flora and fauna.
The social context of the region in which the Leafs Gully property is situated reveals an area of high historical value undergoing significant population and social change. The mix of pro- and anti-development sentiment would suggest that any development in the area would need to be conducted with a high degree of sensitivity to the social context and engage with community stakeholder to ensure all, potentially conflicting, views are taken into account and, where possible, addressed as part of project planning. This is the view taken by AGL in respect to the Leafs Gully property and is reflected in this Social Assessment.
Community Issues
The priority placed on specific issues differed depending on the stakeholder’s proximity to the site (see Figure B below). For community groups generally, the key issues raised were in respect to:
water use, particularly in reference to the source of water, catchment zones, potential impacts on the Nepean River,
visual amenity,
future plant expansion,
traffic impacts, and
flora and fauna and the area’s status as a biodiversity corridor.
For landholders, on the other hand, the areas of greatest priority were associated with potential rezoning and development opportunities for the area. In particular, issues highest concern for this group of stakeholders related to:
visual and noise impacts;
future plant expansion;
air quality;
land values; and
possible “buffer zones” around the plant.
Page 7 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
14
12
10
8 Landholder consultations
Non-landholder 6 consultations
Multiple response frequency response Multiple 4
2
0
ty ty g n g e nt nt ts s i n o ne ns n ite c i c ion ge ni al ni ti o o pi s ines a ing n e u o uality a iti en tpr l idors f plant Noise z a id n rr tat q er z nd iate s / Safety o o e o nsc r b foo i al am Air q Re nd pens s process lth f n imp le cha u m Buff o ty c o ty s Land values a c/ c ree si n veg s ural heritage i fi G on t V ansion o Co ti ty engageme s o ife p proval a ver i t L Cul x traf p InappropMine su c ransmissdi c e supply d A o T o un Heritage build / Public heael i m onstructi pa ge R B C Im a Roa om Future s C r u e Wat Figure B: Leafs Gully Power Project: Frequency of Issues Raised Phase 2 Consultations
Mitigation
In order to address these concerns, AGL has developed a variety of mitigation measures into their project planning including the following:
Flora and Fauna: Commitment to undertake extensive tree planting and revegetation with native plants to enhance vegetation surrounding the proposed plant.
Traffic Impacts: Installation of turning lanes in both directions at the junction of Leafs Gully turnoff and Appin Road.
Visual Impacts: Development of an earth mound, or bund, constructed on the site along the crest running to the north east of the plant. The mound will be vegetated with an appropriate selection of native trees and shrubs. Prominent features of the plant will be painted in colours consistent with the surrounding landscape to further reduce visual impacts.
Noise Impacts: Development of an earth mound, or bund, constructed on the site along the crest running to the north east of the plant. AGL will also specify to equipment suppliers that noise levels must be guaranteed for the plant; and the plant will undergo appropriate commissioning to ensure that noise mitigation strategies are effective.
Water: The site will be fully contained with a sedimentation pond and other control measures to capture run off. The plant will recycle water internally until it is evaporated or is no longer suitable for use.
Air Quality: AGL will explore the impacts of air quality emissions on rain water drinking supplies.
Aboriginal and European Cultural Heritage: AGL will apply to the Department of Environment and Conservation for a permit to conduct sub-surface investigations on the site to determine the existence of Aboriginal artefacts.
Page 8 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
AGL will consult with the Sydney Catchment Authority and the NSW Heritage Office to ensure adequate protection measures during construction and access to the Upper Canal.
If approved, it will be important for the company to develop an ongoing community engagement program to ensure that local landholders and key stakeholder groups are informed of project development for construction through to operation.
Page 9 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
1. Introduction
AGL is proposing to construct and operate a 600 Megawatt open-cycle gas turbine peaking power plant at Leafs Gully farm off Appin Road in Gilead, 14 kilometres south of the Cambelltown CBD and 4.6 kilometres north of the township of Appin (refer to Figure 1.1).
The AGL “Leafs Gully” Project is a State Significant development which requires the approval of the NSW Minister for Planning. An Environmental and Social Assessment has been prepared in support of an application to develop the plant which, if approved, will be commissioned by 2009/10. The plant would employ approximately 50 people during the eighteen month construction phase and five full-time operational staff.
As part of the Environmental and Social Assessment for the project, AGL has consulted with relevant stakeholders and other community members who may be impacted by the development. AGL engaged Coakes Consulting to undertake the social assessment component and this report details the process and outcomes of this program.
Figure 1.1: Location of Leafs Gully farm (highlighted in red), Site of the Proposed AGL Gas Turbine Power Plant
1.1 Site Selection
As part of the initial project feasibility for a gas-turbine power plant development, AGL undertook a comprehensive site assessment across a range of potential development sites. Other sites considered for this project are outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment produced by URS (please refer to Section 3 of the environmental assessment).
By way of recapping on the site selection process, this section outlines in brief the characteristics of the Leafs Gully site that make it a highly appropriate choice for a development of this type.
Leafs Gully Farm covers an area of 280 hectares and is currently used as a horse training and breeding centre. The majority of the land on the site has been cleared for paddocks.
Page 10 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
The proposed gas turbine plant will occupy less than 20 hectares of the 280 hectare site (see Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2: Aerial Photograph of Leafs Gully farm indicating the plant footprint
The Leafs Gully site is unique in that it already contains the necessary supporting infrastructure to install a gas-fired power plant. It is close to a supply of gas and water as well as electricity transmission lines. Features on the site include:
Eastern Gas Pipeline;
Moomba to Sydney Gas Pipeline;
Transgrid 330kV electricity transmission line;
Integral 66 kV distribution line; and
1.2m water main.
Impacts to the site during the construction phase will be contained as much as possible with much of the property remaining untouched from its existing condition. As part of the company’s mitigation strategy, extensive tree planting will take place and some currently cleared areas of the site will be rehabilitated with locally appropriate flora (outlined in detail in Section 6).
1.2 Report Structure
This report begins with an overview of the assessment methodology employed. This section outlines the mechanisms utilised as part of the assessment process and details of stakeholders consulted.
Section 3 contains the Social Profile for the region. The social profile is an important part of the social assessment as it enables the identification of key issues relevant to a particular area and assists in providing a detailed overview of the social context in which the project is based. For the AGL Leafs Gully proposal, the Social Profiles include a review of
Page 11 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment the geographic location and characteristics, local history and trends, regional socio- economic characteristics, governance, community issues, and project implications. The Leafs Gully project is located within the boundaries of the City of Campbelltown, close to the border of the Wollondilly Local Government Area. Hence, profiles have been prepared for both Campbelltown and Wollondilly.
Section 4 provides a summary of community issues associated with the project and reviews the community consultations undertaken. This phase included two periods of consultation: stage one, Scoping, took place in May 2006. This stage was targeted at informing the community, particularly key stakeholders such as adjacent landholders, and community and environmental groups, of the parameters of the project, and to invite community input. Concurrent with this round of consultation, Community Information Sheet Number 1 (Appendix C) was given to all participants and 5,500 copies were distributed to households in the Appin, St Helen’s Park, and Rosemeadow areas. Feedback from this initial phase was provided to AGL who integrated the issues raised by community into the environmental assessments and modelling. For example, mitigation measures, such as the introduction of an earth mound to reduce visual impacts, were introduced to ameliorate potential impacts.
The second round of consultation took place in early July 2006 and provided the community with information on the outcomes of the Environmental Assessments and an additional opportunity to raise questions or issues with the company. The AGL Project Manager attended all of the second phase consultations.
Sections 5 and 6 comment on the economic contribution of the project and population change associated with construction and operational phases. The Leafs Gully project will have only minor impact on the population, mainly due to its low employment numbers (approximately five full-time positions once the project is operational). The Economic Assessment was conducted by URS as part of their Environmental Impact Assessment (for further detail on this aspect, please refer to Section 16 of the environmental assessment).
Section 7 details AGL’s impact management strategies developed in response to community feedback. Each key area, identified by the community, has been listed and the respective mitigation measures highlighted.
Section 8, Monitoring, contains suggestions for future monitoring and assessment of social impacts for the project. Given the concerns raised by the community, particularly adjacent landholders, it is recommended that AGL establish a program to facilitate ongoing community engagement.
Page 12 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
2. Methodology
2.1 Overview
Social impact assessment is a tool used to predict the future effects of a particular proposal on people, that is their way of life (how they live, work and interact with each other); their culture (norms and traditions); and their community (institutions and structures) (Armour 1990).
Vanclay (2003), building on Armour’s categorisation, has identified the following as important drivers in the formation of attitudes towards development proposals:
People’s way of life – that is, how they live, work and play and interact with one another on a day to day basis
Their culture – that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect
Their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities
Their political systems – the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of democratisation that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose
Their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources
Their health and wellbeing – where ‘health’ is understood in a manner similar to the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition: ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’
Their personal and property rights – particularly whether people are economically affected, or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties
Their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children
The social impact assessment process has a number of phases, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. These include:
Profiling to better understand the communities of interest and to obtain baseline information;
Scoping to identify stakeholder issues associated with the proposal;
Assessment of potential issues/impacts, and prediction of the likely socio- economic effects associated with the proposal;
Mitigation, that is working with the community to develop appropriate strategies to address the issues raised; and
Page 13 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Monitoring and management of the issues through the life of the project.
Figure 2.1: The Social Impact Assessment Process
As is the case with any type of change, some individuals or groups within the community may benefit, while others may experience negative impacts. If negative impacts are predicted, it is the role of social impact assessment to determine how such impacts may be ameliorated or mitigated to produce the minimum degree of social disruption to those affected.
Monitoring is also a key component of the social impact assessment process and a program should be developed to identify deviations from the proposed action and to document any unanticipated positive or negative impacts that may arise in the implementation/operational phase.
2.2 Social Assessment Program for the Leaf’s Gully Project
The social assessment program for the Leaf’s Gully Project has involved secondary data review and community involvement methods. Community involvement is an integral part of any social assessment program, and there is a range of different ways of involving the community and collecting relevant information to inform the assessment process.
The full range of methods and mechanisms used to collect, communicate and disseminate information about the proposal are summarised in Table 2.1.
Page 14 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Table 2.1: Social Assessment Mechanisms and Methods
Method Description Documentary analysis Collation, examination and review of relevant reports and studies relating to the project and region Social indicator analysis Examination of census data (1996, 2001) and other community data sets to develop detailed profiles of the relevant local government areas of Campbelltown and Wollondilly Media review Extensive monitoring and review of local, regional, State media to identify historical and current community issues. Personal interviews Semi-structured interviews with stakeholder groups across the community e.g. local landholders/residents, local government, community and environmental groups, to identify salient community issues and concerns, and assess likely impacts of the proposal Community Information Sheets Production and distribution of two Information Sheets detailing the parameters (CIS) of the Leafs Gully project, the outcomes of the environmental assessments, and the mitigation measures being adopted to address impacts/issues identified by the community
2.2.1 Consultation Program
To guide consultation activities, a Consultation Plan was developed to identify stakeholder issues to be considered and addressed.
The specific objectives of the Consultation Plan included:
To initiate and maintain open communication with key stakeholders and members of the community on all aspects of the project, particularly local landholders and key stakeholder groups;
To identify community issues and concerns in relation to the project; and
To work with stakeholders to develop appropriate solutions/strategies to, where possible, address the issues raised.
2.2.1.1 Participants
In the current assessment, stakeholders were identified through a community networking approach to ensure a representation of stakeholder views associated with the project. This technique involves a process called ‘snowball sampling’ where stakeholders are identified through a review of secondary data sources e.g. Community Service directories, title and internet searches and through the involvement process. Stakeholders included:
Landholders/tenants in proximity to the proposal;
Local Business groups;
Environmental groups;
Aboriginal groups;
Local and State Government agencies; and
Page 15 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Industry Groups
Appendix B lists the groups consulted by category, affiliation and outlines the number of participants involved in the consultation.
Community consultation has been a key part of the assessment program for the Leafs Gully Project occurring in two main phases - Phase 2 (Scoping), and Phase Four (Environmental Assessment feedback).
2.2.1.2 Phase 2 – Scoping (Identification of issues)
Phase Two (Scoping), which commenced in early May 2006, provided stakeholders with an overview of the proposed project and the approvals process, sought their initial feedback on potential issues and impacts associated with the proposal, and gathered community suggestions on potential mitigation strategies. Community Information Sheet Number 1, which provided details of the proposal, was provided to all consultation participants and was also distributed to all households in the neighbouring communities of Appin, St Helen’s Park, and Broadmeadows. In total approximately 5,500 Information Sheets were distributed during this phase.
As part of the Phase Two consultation program, invitations to participate in one-on-one consultations were extended to all immediate landholders and residents, as well as special interest groups in the Appin / Gilead areas, such as key commercial and environmental groups. Of the immediate landholders and neighbours, all except two landholders were contacted via telephone and were invited to meet with Coakes Consulting to discuss the project. Of the two that were not contacted, one of these properties was for sale at the time of the consultations and attempts to reach the owners via their representative real estate agent and their tenant were unsuccessful. Contact details for a further landholder were also unable to be sourced. All official enquiries via the title office, and informal enquiries in the locality, failed to reveal the whereabouts of this landholder.
Almost all stakeholders contacted as part of Phase Two accepted the invitation to participate in the consultation process, however, two declined to meet, citing opposition to the project. One additional landholder, who resides interstate, was contacted in writing and via the telephone. This landholder has been sent both Community Information Sheets but declined the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting at his Queensland home due to stated opposition to the project.
In total 20 stakeholder groups comprising 40 participants were consulted in this phase. The majority of consultations were conducted by Coakes Consulting, with the AGL Project Manager present at some of the initial meetings.
Concurrent with the consultations, Community Information Sheet Number 1, “Leafs Gully Power Project” (Appendix C), was distributed by letterbox drop to all households in the township of Appin, and the suburbs of Rosemeadow and St Helens Park. Copies were also made available at key venues such as the Appin Bakery and distributed to consultation participants. Contact details of the project manager and principal social consultant were provided to facilitate ease of contact to the project team. However, only a small number of contacts were received in response to the distribution of the information sheet (no.1). Theses contacts were permanent employment and contractor related enquiries.
Page 16 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
2.2.1.3 Phase 4 – Assessment feedback and Mitigation Strategies
The second period of consultation, which occurred in Phase Four of the assessment program, was undertaken in early July 2006. Key objectives of this phase included the provision of feedback to stakeholders on the findings of the environmental studies; provision of information on the proposed mitigation strategies that the company has committed to implement to address the issues of concern raised by the community; and an overview of the company’s proposed management plans, should the project be approved by government.
As part of the Phase Four consultation, all landholders, residents, community and special interest groups, who participated in the initial community consultations, were contacted and invited to participate. This round of consultations also included the landholders immediately opposite the Leafs Gully site on Appin Road. Again, most stakeholders accepted the invitation to meet, however three declined, one citing opposition to the project and two citing lack of interest or no objections to the project. A small number were unavailable to meet during the week of official consultations, due to other commitments, and these stakeholders were forwarded Community Information Sheet Number 2 and invited to submit their feedback or questions via the feedback form attached to the information sheet.
In total 20 stakeholder groups comprising 28 participants were consulted in this round. Coakes Consulting was accompanied by the AGL Project Manager, who was able to provide detailed technical information on the Environmental Assessments and respond to any specific questions raised by stakeholders.
As with CIS Number 1, CIS Number 2 (Appendix D) was again distributed to all households in Appin, St Helen’s Park, and Rosemeadow. Additional copies were also supplied to the Wollondilly and Campbelltown Councils, and other relevant stakeholders.
Although Phase Four marked the conclusion of the formal community consultation period, participants (in particular local landholders) were encouraged to continue their dialogue with Coakes Consulting and/or AGL should they have any queries or concerns in relation to the proposal.
Table 2.2 summarises the mechanisms employed by stakeholder group, during the two phases of community consultation.
Page 17 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Table 2.2: Consultations mechanisms by stakeholder group Phase Two: Scoping Phase Four: EA Feedback Mechanism
Stakeholder Group No.1 CIS Meeting Personal Release Media No.2 CIS Meeting Personal Release Media Adjacent Landholders / Tenants x X x X State Government Agencies and x x X Elected Members Local Government x X x X Community and environmental x X x X groups Aboriginal groups x X x X Service providers x X X X Relevant committees x X x X General Community – Appin, St X X Helen’s Park, Rosemeadows
In addition to the meetings held by Coakes Consulting, during Phases Two and Four of the assessment program, AGL representatives have met, or had e-mail or telephone contact with, the following groups or authorities:
Department of Environment and Conservation;
Campbelltown Council (briefings provided to the Mayor, Council and Executive);
Several landholders who requested specific meetings with AGL at their properties;
One external environmental consultant representing a landholder.
Page 18 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
3. Social Profile
This section of the report provides an overview of the social context in which the AGL gas turbine power plant proposal is based. The social profile is an important part of the social assessment as it provides an ability to consider the key attributes of an area and its communities; to identify key stakeholders who may have an interest in the project; and to identify relevant issues that can be further explored in the scoping phase of the social assessment program.
The profiling phase involves the necessary preparatory work to develop a detailed understanding of the project context. This work is necessary to provide a baseline from which potential impacts can be predicted and measured. Community issues raised in response to the AGL gas turbine peaking power plant proposal are likely to be driven by the relationship (instrumental, functional and affective) that the community has with the area. To gauge this relationship it is important to have an understanding of the community’s current function as well as its history.
The profile is based on an analysis of relevant census data (time-series), media analysis and other secondary data sources. Historical and contemporary issues; political and social structures; development issues; organizations and leadership; and knowledge of, and attitudes towards development, are also documented.
The profile contains the following subsections:
Geographical Location and characteristics
Local History and Trends
Socio Economic Characteristics and trends
Governance
Community Issues
Project implications
3.1 Project Background
The proposed AGL 600 Megawatt gas turbine peaking power plant site is located off Appin Road in the suburb of Gilead which falls within the Local Government Area (LGA) of the City of Campbelltown. Gilead lies on the border of the Campbelltown LGA between the suburb of Rosemeadow and the Wollondilly Shire LGA.
The nearest township to the project site however, is the semi-rural locality of Appin located within the Local Government Area of Wollondilly Shire, consequently this area has also been included as part of the profile.
Both the City of Campbelltown and Shire of Wollondilly, along with the Municipality of Camden, form the historic Macarthur Region which is 3067 square kilometers and has a population approaching 240,000. The region has approximately 17,600 businesses and is located on major transport corridors.
Page 19 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
The Macarthur region is renowned for its natural features and assets, agricultural land and historical importance as one of the pivotal areas in the development of the nation. Production in the region is based on manufacturing, farming, service industries and mining. Campbelltown, Wollondilly and Camden also form part of MACROC, the Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils.
Campbelltown is also located in the Sydney Metropolitan Region which is comprised of 38 Local Government Authorities and considered Australia's premier global city and economic powerhouse, comprised of strong industry and commerce sectors. The Sydney Metropolitan Region is experiencing strong population growth and subsequently many of the localities that comprise it are experiencing similar development pressures.
However, whilst displaying some socio-economic similarities the City of Campbelltown and Shire of Wollondilly experience different development pressures and unique conditions, community attitudes and issues. As such, each LGA will be treated individually in this section, in order to obtain an appreciation of the contextual nuances and to better understand historical factors that have shaped current community function.
3.2 City of Campbelltown Profile
The City of Campbelltown is located 55 kilometres south west of the Sydney central business district, or less than an hour by road or rail. Campbelltown City is a significant regional centre and one of the ten largest local government authorities in NSW. It is bounded by Wollondilly Shire to the south, Liverpool City to the north, Sutherland Shire and the City of Wollongong to the east, and the Camden Council area to the west.
Campbelltown City covers an area of 312 square kilometres and is bordered by the Georges River, and the Holsworthy Military Reserve to the north, Williams Creek, Lake Woronora and the Woronora River to the east, a section of O’Hares Creek, the Dharawal State Recreation Area to the south, and the Nepean River, and the Mount Annan Botanical Garden to the west.
Campbelltown is considered a cosmopolitan urban centre and is characterized by a combination of city and country; rolling hills, meandering waterways, strong tourism industry as well as significant urban development. Land use in the Campbelltown City LGA is mixed and also includes numerous European heritage buildings and smaller pockets of natural reserves and non-urban zoned land.
Gilead is one of the largest suburbs in the City of Campbelltown but has a small population base as it is less developed and classified rural residential. As such it is quite distinct to the rest of Campbelltown LGA and possesses more similarities to the neighbouring rural township of Appin.
Gilead contains rolling paddocks and many natural features including: Woodhouse, Nepean and Menangle Creeks; as well as wildlife corridors linking the Georges and Nepean Rivers called ‘Brown’s Bush’ and ‘Humewood Forest’. The suburb of Gilead is physically separated from its neighbouring suburb of Rosemeadow by ‘Noorumba Reserve’ named after the Aboriginal term for hunting ground (McGill, Fowler & Richardson, 1995). Gilead only has one public thoroughfare, Appin road.
Page 20 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
The 32 suburbs in the City of Campbelltown include:
Airds Ambarvale Blair Athol Blairmount Bow Bowing Bradbury Campbelltown Claymore Denham Court Eagle Vale Englorie Park Eschol Park Gilead Glen Alpine Glenfield Ingleburn Kearns Kentlyn Leumeah Long Point Macquarie Fields Macquarie Links Menangle Park Minto Minto Heights Raby Rosemeadow Ruse
Page 21 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source: Profile.id. 2002a
Figure 3.1: Suburb map of City of Campbelltown
The City of Campbelltown LGA is located within the boundaries of both the Macarthur and Werriwa Federal electorates. The suburb of Gilead is located within Macarthur which is 573 kilometres square and borders the edge of the Sydney Metropolitan area, spanning the southern suburbs of Campbelltown, all of the Local Government Area of Camden and small parts of Wollondilly.
The Macarthur Federal Electorate has been represented by the Liberal Party member Pat Farmer since 2001, but has been represented by different parties over the years due to larger than average swings associated with redistributions. Varying degrees of support for the Liberal party in Macarthur during the last election was associated with the district’s mix of public and private housing estates.
Land use within the Macarthur federal electorate is mixed and comprises new housing estates between Camden and Campbelltown, as well as remnant rural areas of the Sydney basin between Liverpool and Penrith such as Bringelly and Leppington. The population of the electorate is likely to expand significantly in the next few years due to speculated residential land releases surrounding Sydney.
Page 22 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source: Australian Electoral Commission (2006).
Figure 3.2: Map of electoral division of Macarthur
The City of Campbelltown Local Government Area spans three NWS State electoral districts: Campbelltown, Macquarie Fields and Camden. The suburb of Gilead is located in the NSW State electorate of Camden which covers 2, 160 square kilometres and is represented by Geoff Corrigan of the Australian Labor Party since the 2003 election. Prior to that, it was held by Liz Kernohan of the Liberal Party.
Page 23 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source SEO: Retrieved from http://www.seo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/893/camden.pdf Figure 3.3: Map of State electoral division of Camden
3.2.1 Local History & Trends
3.2.1.1 Aboriginal History
The original inhabitants of the Campbelltown area were known as the Dharawal people, (also spelt as Tarawal or Thuruwal) whose territory spanned the coastal areas of Sydney between Broken Bay /Pittwater to the Shoalhaven River and inland to Camden. The traditional language of this tribe was also known as Dharawal and this was spoken from Sydney in the north to as far south as Bega. Today Campbelltown has one of Sydney’s largest populations of people identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent (Wollongong city library).
3.2.1.2 European History
Campbelltown was founded by Europeans in 1820 and has a rich colonial as well as Aboriginal history. Named after Elizabeth Campbell, the wife of the Governor of NSW at the time, Lachlan Macquarie, Campbelltown was pivotal to the start of Australian agriculture and farming. Campbelltown is known to have been the area in which Australia’s first farmer, James Ruse, produced wheat, while John Macarthur established his merino wool empire in nearby Camden.
The Campbelltown and Macarthur region have become known as Sydney’s ‘Living Heritage’ area and contain numerous heritage listed buildings and sites, pioneer
Page 24 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment cemeteries, and Aboriginal heritage items. Heritage listed buildings range from humble slab huts to opulent manors and mansions.
Campbelltown was selected as a satellite city and regional capital of south west Sydney in the 1950s and subsequently experienced extensive population expansion and urban development. Land surrounding the Campbelltown Township was designated for future public and private housing by the government. Some of the areas in Campbelltown developed for public housing, such as Minto, have been redeveloped in order to rectify significant social issues stemming from poor town planning principles of earlier decades. Recently land prices in Campbelltown have risen in line with the rest of the Sydney metropolitan region and strong growth is anticipated in areas such as Bringelly and Camden.
3.2.1.3 Gilead History
The suburb of Gilead gains its name from the 400 acre property with the same name nestled between Rosemeadow and Appin granted to Reuben Uther in 1812, and later owned by one of the pivotal founders of Campbelltown and namesake of Rosemeadow, Thomas Rose. Thomas Rose renamed the property Mount Gilead, which it retains today. In the 1880s the property was turned into one of Sydney’s social centres by then owner Edmund Woodhouse. Mt Gilead is currently owned by the notable Macarthur- Onslow family who purchased it in 1941, and use it as a working diary farm.
Mount Gilead adjoins the project site and contains a group of heritage listed stone buildings, including the homestead, stables, and windmill tower (McGill, Fowler & Richardson, 1995; Mount Gilead Group, 2006). Another adjoining property, Meadowvale, also contains heritage listed colonial buildings and was granted to Andrew Hume in 1812. Meadowvale currently operates as a horse riding school.
The suburb of Gilead was identified as a site for future urban development by the State Government in 1993. The plans involved subdividing the fields of Gilead into residential lots capable of housing 20 000 people, but were controversial and were halted because they were deemed to pose a significant pollution risk to the nearby environmentally sensitive Nepean River (McGill, Fowler & Richardson, 1995).
3.2.2 Socio-economic Characteristics & Trends
This section of the report details the socio-economic characteristics of the Local Government Area of the City of Campbelltown. Where available, data has been assessed across two ABS census periods (1996, 2001) and compared to the broader Sydney Statistical division and NSW state in order to map and compare trends. However, it must be noted that the Sydney region has experienced significant growth in recent years, which may not be captured by the last census. For, instance a review of local, regional and State media, which will be detailed in a later section of the report, suggests population expansion related to several new housing development, and land releases in the Campbelltown area within the last year.
According to 2001 census data the Campbelltown City LGA had a population of 145,294 which represented population growth of only 1.3% from the 1996 census. This growth is lower than that of the NSW state in which there was a 5.5% population expansion.
According to 2001 census data Campbelltown has a relatively high proportion of the population identifying themselves as Indigenous. For example in 2001, 3,602 people or
Page 25 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
2.5% of the Campbelltown population were Indigenous compared to 1.9% of the broader NSW population.
Table 3.1: Trends in summary statistics, Campbelltown LGA and NSW
2001 1996 Change 1996-2001 Summary Campbelltown Campbelltown Campbelltown statistics LGA NSW LGA NSW LGA NSW Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Total 145,294 100.0 6,371,745 100 143 431 100.0 6,038,696 1,863 1.3 333,049 5.5 population
Indigenous 3,602 2.5 119,865 1.9 3,448 2.4 101,485 1.7 154 4.4 18,380 18.1 population
Australian 99,455 68.5 4,450,772 69.9 103,245 72.0 4,394,326 72.8 -3,790 -3.7 56,446 1.3 born
Overseas 36,532 25.1 1,474,987 23.1 35,200 24.5 1,388,849 23.0 1,332 3.8 86,138 6.2 born
The age structure profile of a community can be a social indicator of several demographic factors: including relative socio-economic disadvantage and trends in family structure. According to 2001 census data the City of Campbelltown City LGA was characterised by relatively high proportions of the population in both young and more mature family age groups, with 69% of the population aged between 0-17 and 25-49, which is indicative of substantial residential development in the area over a number of decades. Comparatively young populations can also indicate relative socio-economic disadvantage.
Page 26 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
25
20
15
Campbelltown LGA
Sydney Statistical 10 division % of population
NSW
5
0 0-4 5-11 12-17 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-84 85+ Age bracket
Figure 3.4: Age structure of Campbelltown LGA, Sydney Statistical Division and NSW state, 2001
Changes in age structure can provide insights into the demand for services and facilities in the future and changes in the area’s residential role and function. Changes in the age structure of the Campbelltown LGA between 1996 and 2001 suggests an ageing population and demonstrate an increase in the number of people aged between 50-59 (4386 persons) and 60-69 years (1553 persons) as well as a decrease in the number of people aged 0-4 years (1553 person).
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Number of people 0 0-4 5-11 12-17 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-84 85+
-1000
-2000
-3000 Age bracket
Figure 3.5: Changes in age structure of Campbelltown LGA from 1996 to 2001
According to the 2001 census data Campbelltown LGA demonstrated relatively lower household incomes than the broader Sydney Statistical Division. In 2001 Campbelltown LGA had a greater concentration of households at the low income end of the spectrum, and a higher proportion of households in the lower income quartile groups, below the average income for the Sydney Statistical Division.
Page 27 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
16
14
12
10
8 Campelltown LGA
6 Sydney Statistical division % of total households 4
2
0
9 9 99 99 0+ ted -29 -399 -499 -599 -79 -999 0 0 sta $1-199 0-14 $200 t il income $200 $30 $400 $500 $600-699 $700 $80 o N 1000-11 N $ $120 $1500-1999 Weekly household income
Figure 3.6: Weekly household income, Campbelltown LGA and Sydney Statistical Division, 2001
Table 3.2: Household income quartile groups, Campbelltown LGA and Sydney Statistical division, 2001 % of households 2001 1996 Sydney Sydney Campbelltown statistical Campbelltown statistical Income groups LGA Division LGA Division
Lowest 25.7 25 22.6 25
Medium lowest 29.1 25 28.1 25
Medium highest 27.6 25 29.3 25
Highest 17.6 25 20.1 25
Income quartiles allow for comparison of relative income over a period of time by taking into account inflation and economic factors. Comparison of 1996 and 2001 census data indicated that the Campbelltown LGA experienced growth in the number of households in the lowest income group and a decrease in the number of households in the highest income group in 2001, suggesting a greater concentration of low income households.
Page 28 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
2000
1500
1000
500
0 Numberhouseholds of Lowest Medium lowest Medium highest Highest
-500
-1000 Weekly income quartile group
Figure 3.7: Change in weekly household income (quartiles), Campbelltown LGA, 1996 to 2001
The relatively low incomes demonstrated in Campbelltown LGA may be related to the higher proportion of the population without qualifications. According to the 2001 census, 58.7% of persons aged 15 years and over in Campbelltown LGA did not posses any qualifications, compared to 48.7% of people in the broader Sydney Statistical Divisions.
70
60
50
40
Campbelltown LGA
30
Sydney Statistical 20 Division % of persons aged 15 years+ 15 aged persons % of
10
0 Bachelor or higher Advance diploma or Vocational No qualifications diploma Qualification
Figure 3.8: Qualifications attained, City of Campbelltown and Sydney Statistical Division, 2001
The proportion of dwelling types can be an indication of land use patterns, family structures as well as the role and function that the area plays in the housing market. According to the 2001 census there is a relatively high concentration of separate houses
Page 29 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
in Campbelltown, which comprise 76.1% of the market, compared to 69.7% of the broader NSW state market. Campbelltown also demonstrated a relatively low concentration of flats or apartments, which consisted of 2.4% of the housing market compared to 18.3% in the broader NSW state market. This indicates a high proportion of families, and lower density of population in Campbelltown LGA compared to NSW.
Comparing dwelling composition of a community can also provide insights into changes in the housing market. An additional 3107 separate houses where built in Campbelltown between 1996 and 2001, representing 9.1% growth in separate houses since 1996, compared to 6.9% growth in separate houses since 1996 in NSW. There was actually a reduction of 99 flats or apartments in Campbelltown from 1996 to 2001, representing a decrease of 7.69% in the number of flats or apartments in the housing market, compared to 14.8% growth in NSW. This indicates that flats or apartments were being replaced for separate houses in Campbelltown during this period. Strong growth in separate houses has implications for the amount of available undeveloped land in the area.
In 2004, Campbelltown City Council undertook community consultation whereby around two-thirds of residents surveyed felt that there was enough or too many apartments/ townhouses in Campbelltown. Furthermore media coverage of the City of Campbelltown (Units take over home market: Sunday Telegraph, 18th of September 2005) indicated that the Greenbank Twins development represented the first new apartments to be built in the suburb of Campbelltown in 30 years.
Table 3.3: Changes in dwelling types, Campbelltown, LGA and NSW state, 2001 2001 1996 Change 1996-2001 Dwelling Campbelltown LGA NSW Campbelltown LGA NSW Campbelltown LGA NSW type Number % % Number % % Number % % Separate house 37092 76.1 69.7 33985 73.7 70.21 3107 9.14 6.9 Semi- detached 8056 16.5 9.3 7836 17 8.22 220 2.81 22.5 Flat, apartment 1188 2.4. 18.3 1287 2.8 1.72 -99 -7.69 14.8
Not stated 362 0.08 0.9 110 0.2 2.39 252 229.09 -58
Other 38 0.7 1.7 75 0.2 1.9 -37 -49.33 -7.5 Total occupied private dwelling 46736 95.9 91.14 44293 96 91.06 2443 5.52 7.7 Total unoccupied dwelling 2012 4.1 8.86 1826 4 8.94 186 10.19 7 Total dwellings 48748 100 100 46119 100 100 2629 5.70 7.7
Page 30 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Campbelltown LGA 5.00
NSW 0.00 % change from 1996 to from 19962001% change to Separate Semi- Flat, TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL house detached apartment occupied unoccupied dwellings -5.00 private dwelling dwelling
-10.00 dwelling type
Figure 3.9: Percent of change in dwelling types, Campbelltown, LGA and NSW state, 2001
3.2.3 Governance
The Campbelltown City Council has produced detailed social plans for the period 2004- 2009 which identify factors affecting quality of life now and in the future, as well as strategies to mitigate decrements in the quality of life in the area. Part of identifying these factors and challenges has been developing a community profile in which several issues were highlighted including: strain related to Campbelltown and the Macarthur regions growing populations; Campbelltown increasingly becoming a regional centre; changes in social structure related to migration in and out of Campbelltown; housing becoming less affordable; challenges associated with providing infrastructure to support new housing developments; social disadvantage and poor health in Campbelltown; and education and unemployment issues- including the mismatch between the skill base of residents and local employment opportunities.
Several issues were identified through the Council’s initiated community consultation in 2004. Traffic, roads and transport were perceived as the biggest issues affecting Campbelltown residents as public transport was considered costly, unreliable and inaccessible, roads were congested, and commuting to work by car was creating financial strain for families. Campbelltown was above Sydney and state averages in a number of crimes and residents were concerned about safety. Health services were considered inaccessible due to transportation issues and there was a lack of nursing aged care facilities to support the ageing population. Residents wanted to preserve the semi-rural nature of Campbelltown and were concerned about the nature and extent of urban development. Furthermore improvements in infrastructure were considered necessary to support the growing population. There were concerns about the amount of apartments or townhouses in the area and indication that public housing needed to be better maintained.
Page 31 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
In order to address these issues the Campbelltown City Council has identified areas of focus areas and strategic directions. The Focus areas include:
1. Traffic and transport
2. Crime and safety
3. Health
4. Recreation and Culture
5. Urban development
6. Employment education and training
7. City image
8. Council’s leadership in the community
9. Strengthening local communities
The strategic directions include:
1. Growing as the regional city centre
2. Building a distinctive Campbelltown Sense of place
3. Getting around the city
4. Protecting and enhancing the city’s key environmental assets
5. Building and maintaining quality infrastructure
6. Keeping people at work- investing in economic sustainability
7. Empowering the community
3.2.4 Community Issues
3.2.4.1 Media Review
A search of local, regional, state and national media was conducted using the Factiva database to review media coverage of Campbelltown area. The review identified several community issues which support those identified in demographic analysis and through the Campbelltown City Council’s community consultation program. Consultation conducted by Coakes Consulting with landholders directly affected by the AGL proposal has also identified concerns relating to impacts on potential future urban development of neighbouring properties.
In light of this a review of local, regional, state and national media coverage of the City of Campbelltown, as well as attitudes towards the AGL power plant proposal, urban development and associated pressures was conducted in order to provide a general overview of public opinion and to identify salient community issues. As such, the media time line presented below is a selected review of articles published in the past year that
Page 32 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment best illustrate community issues, public opinion and attitudes towards the proposal and urban development generally. It must be noted that the Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser was not available through the Factiva database or available online, and as such has not been included in the review.
Page 33 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Figure 3.10: Media review of Campbelltown
Media coverage of the AGL proposal has been largely portrayed from a business rather than community perspective, and focused on the economic and financial aspects of the proposal. Media interest in the AGL proposal was limited to November and December last year and has not elaborated on the initial concerns expressed by representatives of the City of Campbelltown. The only article conveying community concern about the proposal detected in the media review was from the Macarthur Chronicle 6th of December 2005 (Power station fires up mayor). Campbelltown Mayor, Russell Matheson,
Page 34 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment was quoted as expressing concern that the proposal would become of State Significance and not need approval from the City of Campbelltown Council. He stated that “ There are a few worried landowners adjoining the site…what council needs is a briefing from AGL…We need to look at the technology side and see how it works”, he went on to say “…we don’t want to become a dumping ground for industries that aren’t healthy or not in the community’s best interest” .
Other central community issues arising from a review of relevant media include:
Concerns about traffic, roads and transport
Issues related to urban development, land releases and housing markets, and
Issues associated with housing estates and related infrastructure requirements.
3.2.4.2 Concerns About Traffic, Roads & Transport
Issues associated with traffic, roads and transport largely stem from Campbelltown being a South West residential centre, not having local employment opportunities compatible with the skill base of residents, resulting in large numbers of people commuting to work in areas like the Sydney CBD.
Coverage of public transport indicated that service capacity could not accommodate the large population in the South west of Sydney and subsequently commuting to the Sydney CBD was problematic. Workers driving to work however had to contend with high fuel prices placing considerable strain on household income, as well as congested and dangerous roads. Appin road received a lot of coverage for fatalities and requests from the community and truck drivers for upgrades and to improve safety.
Appin road is the only public thoroughfare through Gilead and is essentially a country road that deals with dense urban traffic moving between Campbelltown, Appin and the coast, as well as industrial vehicles including coal trucks. A crisis meeting between the Appin Road Action Group [ARAG] and the Ministers for Transport and Roads in August 2000 resulted in a commitment of $280,000 for upgrades (NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, 7 June 2001, article 35).
Problems associated with Appin road are related to its physical characteristics as well as the fact that the road traverses two Council areas- Campbelltown and Wollondilly, and is under the administration of two RTA divisions centred in Wollongong and Blacktown, resulting in confusion regarding maintenance responsibilities (NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, 9 August 2000, article 19).
In response to community concerns regarding traffic, roads and transport Campbelltown Council have released plans to spend $5.73 million on roads and infrastructure (Sydney Morning Herald, 26 June 2006). Campbelltown City Council have also released a Road Safety Strategic Plan for 2004-2009, the key objectives of which are to reduce road crashes and causalities by improving road user behaviour and the safety of the road environment. This involves ensuring that road safety is a council priority in relation to land use and transport planning. Road crashes are described as having high social and economic costs to the community in Campbelltown, and likely to occur for residents within a 2 kilometre radius from home. Road environment factors contributing to road incidents include: traffic volumes, changing road alignment, road surface line marking, signage and lighting.
Page 35 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000 Injuries 800 Crashes 600
400
200
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: Road Safety Strategic Plan for 2004-2009
Figure 3.11 Trends in road injuries and crashes in Campbelltown LGA 3.2.4.3 Urban Development, Land Releases & Housing Markets
Consultation conducted by Coakes Consulting with landholders of properties adjoining the AGL project site revealed concerns about impacts of the proposal on land prices and the future urban development potential of their properties. Future local and state government decisions to rezone the land of these adjoining properties from the current non-urban zoning were perceived to be negatively affected by the presence of industrial development on the project site. However a review of media and public documents pertaining to urban development in the City of Campbelltown indicated that the desire of landholders to develop parts of Gilead currently classified as rural residential were not shared by all sections of the community.
The City of Campbelltown was identified as one of Sydney’s most affordable areas, attracting many young families and new homebuyers, continuing the trend of South west migration. Media coverage of recent land releases and rezoning in the City of Campbelltown indicated a significant amount of recent urban development as well as some community concern regarding impacts to sense of place and rural character, as well as capacity of community services and infrastructure to accommodate this growth.
The strong push for urban development in Campbelltown has resulted in some community dispute. The heritage listed Glenalvon, a colonial stone building and stables central to early development and civic life of Campbelltown, was identified by developers as an impediment to south west growth in Campbelltown’s CBD.
Recent urban developments and land releases in and around the City of Campbelltown include: 800ha at Edmondson Park for 7500 new home sites; Macarthur Village aged care development in Campbelltown’s Park Central; Greenbank Twins apartment development in the suburb of Campbelltown; the Minto redevelopment; Bringelly and Leppington developments in Liverpool; and development of 4200 houses in Menangle Park.
One of Campbelltown’s last great land expanses, in Edmondson Park, located south-west of Liverpool between Glenfield and Denham, was officially rezoned to make way for 23,000 new residents and 250ha of parkland (Land rezoned: Macarthur Chronicle, 4th
Page 36 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
April, 2006). The land release was released as part of the State Government’s “Smart Growth” Urban development program and was perceived as continuing the trend of the South West Sydney becoming a premier and affordable location for young families. Edmonson Park will eventually house up to 108,000 families and is the first development within the South West Growth Centre (Department of Planning, 2005).
The NSW State Government has released The Metropolitan Strategy (2005) to guide growth over the next 30 years in the Greater Metropolitan Region of Sydney which extends from the lower Hunter to the Blue Mountains. It considers a range of issues including: urban growth, housing, communities and urban renewal, conserving natural resources and protecting the environment, as well as transport and infrastructure.
The City of Cities- A Plan for Sydney’s Future (Department of Planning, 2005) was developed to manage Sydney’s anticipated growth of 1.1 million people between 2004 and 2031. To accommodate growth, the NSW State Government has predicted the development of 64,000 new homes. The plan concentrates on strategic growth centres which will ensure that Sydney’s residents do not have to travel more than one hour a day for jobs, services or recreation opportunities.
In this plan, the City of Liverpool, which adjoins Campbelltown, has been identified for development as the South West growth centre and a Regional city. In this plan Campbelltown is excluded from the growth centre but is identified as a major shopping and business centre for the surrounding area with a full scale shopping mall, council offices, taller office and residential buildings, central community facilities and a minimum of 8,000 new jobs.
The City of Cities plan has five central aims:
1. Enhance Liveablity- by ensuring housing development accommodates a changing and ageing population, and is close to service whilst protecting the character of suburbs and communities.
2. Strengthen Economic competitiveness- by promoting long-term economic sustainability
3. Ensure fairness- ensure equity of access to employment, services, public transport and recreational opportunities
4. Protect the environment- and improve natural resource and waste management
5. Improve governance- ensuring high quality planning and decision making
Page 37 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source: Department of Planning (2005)
Figure 3.12: Map of Sydney metropolitan growth centres
Page 38 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source: Department of Planning (2005).
Figure 3.13: Map of South West Sydney metropolitan growth centre
Page 39 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
3.2.4.4 Housing Estates & Related Infrastructure Requirements
Existing high-density housing developments in the City of Campbelltown have received media coverage relating to socio-economic disadvantage and inadequate resident access to services.
Urban development in previous decades has resulted in community impacts and social problems. These developments are testimony to the impacts of development based on poor town planning principles, without addressing infrastructure requirements.
Residents in housing estates in Campbelltown have expressed annoyance over the lack of community facilities that had been previously promised by developers (Estate short- changed over lack of facilities; Macarthur Chronicle, 7 March 2006). Subsequently recent community concern has been generated about potential land releases and urban development which does not address infrastructure requirement (At the crossroads of good or bad suburbs: The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 2006).
3.2.5 Project Implications
Given the profiling undertaken, the following dot points outline the main issues relevant to the AGL proposal
Community opposition to the AGL gas turbine power plant proposal has been predominantly limited to the adjoining landholders, some of which have future urban development aspirations for their properties.
The suburb of Gilead in which the project site is located was earmarked for future urban development by the State Government in December 1993; however these plans were put on hold due to the environmental sensitivity of the nearby Nepean River, which was not thought to be able to support residential housing. Gilead is thought to have wildlife corridors that link nature reserves and water systems running through undeveloped sections of land.
Media coverage of the AGL proposal was limited to December and November 2005, and was largely focused on economic and business aspects. Minimal community interest in the proposal has been documented in local media.
The City of Campbelltown is experiencing strong population growth and migration people from other areas in the State, particularly young families. This is related to the affordability of land in the City of Campbelltown.
There has been a strong push for urban development and rezoning in the City of Campbelltown in recent years which has mirrored broader Sydney Metropolitan region trends. This push has resulted in community dispute of heritage value of Campbelltown buildings, such as Glenavlon which has been described by developers as an impediment to the CBD expansion.
Community attitudes to urban development in Campbelltown are variable. Some landholders are eager for non-urban zoned land to rezoned for urban development, whereas other residents wish to retain the rural characteristics and sense of place of Campbelltown.
The City of Campbelltown is experiencing pressures associated with outward urban development of the Sydney Metropolitan Region. These pressures
Page 40 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
include problems associated with: transport, roads, infrastructure requirements, local employment and housing estates.
The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (Department of Planning, 2005) for the period 2004 to 2031 has identified the City of Liverpool, which adjoins Campbelltown, as the South West Urban Growth centre. Campbelltown was excluded from the urban growth centre, but was identified as retail and business centre in order to provide more local employment opportunities and reduce the amount of commuting to the Sydney CBD.
3.3 Shire of Wollondilly Profile
3.3.1 Geographic Location & Characteristics
Appin is the closest township to the AGL project site, and is located 71 Kilometres south west of Sydney on the road between Campbelltown and Wollongong, Appin road, in the Local Government Area of Wollondilly Shire. The Wollondilly Shire covers an area of 2,560 km2 and is on the fringe of the Sydney metropolitan area, stretching from Yanderra in the south and Appin and Menangle in the east, to Warragamba in the north and the Nattai Wilderness and Burragorang Valley in the west.
Wollondilly is located in the Macarthur region at the foothills of the Southern Highlands and is one hour’s drive from the Sydney CBD. Wollondilly is bordered by the Blue Mountains in the North, the Local Government Areas of Camden, Campbelltown, Liverpool and Wollongong to the east, Wingecarribee Shire in the south and Goulburn, Mulwaree and Oberon Councils to the west.
Wollondilly consists of 16 towns. Localities in the LGA include: Nattai and the Burragorang Appin alley Bargo Oakdale Belimbla Park Pheasants Nest Brownlow Hill Picton Buxton Razorback Camden Park Silverdale Cawdor Tahmoor Couridjah The Oaks Douglas Park Theresa Park Darkes Forest Thirlmere Glenmore Warragamba Menangle Wilton Mount Hunter Yanderra Mowbray Park Yerranderie The largest town is Tahmoor with a population of 4,664 and the smallest is Darkes Forest with a population of 17. The Camden, Campbelltown and Wollongong Local Government Areas (LGAs) adjoin Wollondilly Shire.
Page 41 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source: Profile.id. 2002b Figure 3.14: Location Map of Wollondilly Shire
The Shire of Wollondilly lies within the Federal Electorate of Hume, which covers an area of approximately 25,948 kilometres square from Warragamba in the north to Yass in the south and from Bowral in the east to Young in the west. The Hume Electorate is a safe Liberal seat held by Alby Schultz since 1998.
Page 42 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source: Australian Electoral Commission
Figure 3.15: Map of federal electoral division of Hume
The Shire of Wollondilly spans the State electorates of the Southern Highlands and Camden. Appin is located in the State electorate of Southern Highlands which is 3,714 kilometres square and spans parts of the Shires of Wollondilly, Wingecarribee and the Cities of Wollongong and Shoalhaven. The Southern Highlands seat has been held by Peta Seaton of the Liberal Party since 1995, prior to which it was held by John Fahey also a Liberal party member.
Page 43 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Source: State Electorate Office
Figure 3.16: Map of State electoral division of Southern Highlands
Land use in Wollondilly is diverse and consists of residential areas (large suburban areas, towns and villages), water supply catchment areas for Sydney and Wollongong, agricultural land, state recreational areas and industry.
More than half of the Wollondilly LGA is comprised of National Park and sensitive water catchment lands and all of the settled areas of the Shire are located east of the Sydney’s major water supply source, Lake Burragorang. Two-thirds of Wollondilly Shire is protected
Page 44 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment from clearing due to it being designated as a drinking water catchment area for Sydney’s Water supply, of which the Shire provides approximately 97%.
Production in the Wollondilly Shire is based on coal mining, poultry, lamb, fruit, vegetables, timber and textiles. The LGA is a centre for fine wool, dairying, horse-breeding/agistment and tourism.
3.3.2 Local History & Trends 3.3.2.1 Aboriginal & European History
It is believed that the Tharawal and neighbouring Gundungurra and Wodi Wodi people used the area around the Southern Highlands as a major trading route amongst Aboriginal communities.
Picton is one of the earliest European settlements in Australia, founded in 1795 when a convict located some wandering stock in the area. Picton is thought to have been named after Sir Thomas Picton.
The suburb of Appin was named by Governor Macquarie in 1811, and Andrew Hume settled there in 1812. Over the following years Hume and company travelled the area exploring the Razor Back Range, and the townships now known as Berrima, Picton, Mittagong, Bowral and Bong Bong.
Appin has been used as an example of Sydney’s urban sprawl negatively affecting historic communities through the development of housing insensitive to heritage issues. The historic township of Appin consists of numerous heritage buildings that have been altered or are in disrepair.
3.3.3 Population Characteristics & Trends
According to the 2001 census, the Appin Township had an estimated total population of 1,453, which represents 3.9% of the total Wollondilly LGA population of 37,123. The population of Appin grew approximately 9.6% since the 1996 census.
The Wollondilly LGA total statistics include statistics for the Appin township area, therefore when comparing trends between the two it is important to extract the individual contributions that each makes. As such the following section outlines the statistics for the Wollondilly LGA excluding the Appin area in order to make meaningful comparisons.
Page 45 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Table 3.4: Summary statistics 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA-excluding Appin 2001 1996 Change 1996-2001 Appin Wollondilly Appin Wollondilly Appin Wollondilly LGA- LGA- LGA- excluding excluding excluding Appin Appin Appin Dwelling type No. % No. % Total population 1453 35670 1326 32087 127 9.6 3583 11.2 Indigenous population 10 564 11 462 -1 -9.1 102 22.1 Total occupied private dwelling 468 11711 411 10314 57 13.9 1397 13.5 Total unoccupied dwelling 16 753 14 669 2 14.3 84 12.6 Total Dwelling 484 12464 425 11040 59 13.9 1424 12.9
Both the Appin area and the Wollondilly LGA demonstrated growth in total dwellings from the 1996 to 2001 census. Appin demonstrated stronger growth in both occupied and unoccupied dwellings than the Wollondilly LGA excluding the Appin area. Approximately 57 new dwellings were built in the Appin area between 1996 and 2001, representing growth of 13.9%.
14.5 14.3
14 13.9
13.5 13.5
Appin
13 Wollondilly LGA- excluding Appin 12.6
12.5 % change from 1996 to 2001 to 1996 from % change
12
11.5 Total occupied private dwelling Total unoccupied dwelling
Figure 3.17: Percent of change in dwellings from 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA excluding Appin
In 2004 the number of residential building approvals for total dwelling in the Wollondilly LGA demonstrated an annual decline from the previous year of 134. The following table details trends in building approvals in the Shire of Wollondilly. Residential building approvals are compiled from permits issued by: local government authorities and other key certifying authorities; contracts let or day labour work authorised by Commonwealth,
Page 46 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment state, semi-government and local government authorities, and; major building approvals in areas not subject to normal administrative approval e.g. building on remote mine sites.
Table 3.5: Trends in building approvals in the Shire of Wollondilly LGA Building approvals Annual change* Year (year ending Separate Other Total Separate Other Total June 30) dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings 2004-05 248 43 291 -134 14 -120 2003-04 382 29 411 24 -31 -7 2002-03 358 60 418 -1 5 4 2001-02 359 55 414 91 30 121 2000-01 268 25 293 -98 -5 -103 1999-00 366 30 396 37 17 54 1998-99 329 13 342 20 -13 7 1997-98 309 26 335 48 19 67 1996-97 261 7 268 8 -25 -17 1995-96 253 32 285 -- --
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Building Activity, Australia, (catalogue number: 8752.0 to 8752.7) Taken from Profile.id (2002b)
* Annual change represents the difference in number from the preceding year. Negative numbers denote a drop in the number of approvals from the previous year, and positive numbers an increase
The main findings from the 2001 census indicate that the area comprised of Appin, Douglas Park and Wilton and surrounds show:
The number of persons per dwelling is significantly higher than the NSW average.
There has been a decline in homes that are fully owned, while there has been an increase in the percentage of homes being purchased (i.e. mortgages)
Between 1996 and 2001 the percentage of people of pre-retirement age in the population of the three towns has increased.
In Appin the number of children below 12 years of age is significantly higher than the State average.
The child dependency ratio across is also significantly higher than the State average, suggesting higher concentrations of children below 14 years of age when compared to the NSW State averages.
Relative to NSW State, there were a higher percentage of people that have left school at year 10.
Relative to NSW State, there were a higher percentage of people who are Australian born. In the area there were also a relatively higher percentage of people from North-West Europe.
Page 47 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Appin has relatively high percentages of couples with children and relatively fewer couples without children.
The weekly household income in 2001 across was significantly higher than the NSW state average.
There has been a decline in the level of full time employment and an increase in part time employment, although in 2001 the percentage of full and part time employment is similar to the NSW State average The township of Appin and the broader Wollondilly LGA excluding Appin demonstrated different trends in age structure from the 1996 and 2001 census. Changes in the age structure of Appin indicate an aging population and migration of people of young family age out of the area. Interestingly media coverage of neighbouring Campbelltown indicates that the area is attracting young families due to the affordability of land and access to services.
Table 3.6: Trends in Age-structure from 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA excluding Appin 2001 1996 Change 1996 to 2001 Wollondill Wollondill Wollondill y LGA- y LGA- y LGA- excluding excluding excluding Age Appin Appin Appin Appin Appin Appin structure No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0-4 159 10.8 3181 8.8 158 11.7 3283 10.1 1 0.6 -102 -3.1 5-12 229 15.5 5116 14.2 234 17.4 4872 15 -5 -2.1 244 5 13-17 117 7.9 3092 8.6 107 7.9 2684 8.3 10 9.3 408 15.2 18-24 119 8.1 3019 8.4 97 7.2 2844 8.7 22 22.7 175 6.2 25-39 331 22.4 7560 21 366 27.2 7318 22.5 -35 -9.6 242 3.3 40-49 246 16.7 5633 15.7 182 13.5 5110 15.7 64 35.2 523 10.2 50-64 193 13.1 5497 18.3 140 10.4 3955 12.2 53 37.9 1542 39 65+ 83 5.6 2880 8 62 4.6 2460 7.6 21 33.9 420 17.1 Total 1477 100 35978 100 1346 100 32526 100 131 9.7 3452 10.6
Page 48 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
50
40
30
Appin 20
Wollondilly- 10 excluding Appin
0 % change from 1996 to 2001 % change from 1996 0-4 5-12 13-17 18-24 25-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Total
-10
-20 Age bracket
Figure 3.18: Trends in Age-structure from 1996 to 2001, Appin and Wollondilly LGA excluding Appin
3.3.4 Governance
The Wollondilly Shire Council, as it is today, was formed in 1939 and was amalgamated with the Picton Municipality. The Wollondilly Shire forms part of MACROC, the Macarthur Regional Organisation which covers three local government authorities with Camden and Campbelltown.
In 2002, the Wollondilly Shire embarked upon an innovative process which resulted in it receiving a Commendation Award for Innovation from the Australian Government Department of Transport and Regional Services. This involved producing a State of Wollondilly Report which merges the State of the Environment Report, their Social Plan and the Shire’s Management Plan. This first report established baseline indicators that would be reported in future years. It set out to monitor key aspects of life in Wollondilly and, with community comment, established the following as six community expectations, each of which is supported by a goal and a series of measurable outcomes:
A Sustainable Natural and Built Environment
A Balanced Urban & Rural Lifestyle
A Vibrant and Diverse Local Economy
A Community Together
A Range of Lifestyle Opportunities
Page 49 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
An Open & Accessible Council
These expectations underpin the Shire’s on-going Management Plan which is supported by an integrated financial planning tool that links these community expectations to the Shire’s financial performance and service delivery. This linkage ensures that the corporate decision-making is measurable, transparent and focused on realistic outcomes.
The innovative State of Wollondilly reporting process involves an annual update with a major review every four years. This is supported by a Community Vision for Wollondilly which is revised every four years. These activities support the Management Plan which includes work programs, a five-year financial plan and an asset development plan. This Management Plan determines service delivery which is measured through the performance indicators and reflected in the Annual Report. The Shire’s comprehensive corporate management process ensures that they have clear targets, achieved through community consultation.
In respect of the representatives for the Tharawal people, their legitimate and statutory representatives are the Tharawal Land Council, the largest landowner in Wollondilly.
3.3.5 Community Issues
3.3.5.1 Media Review
A review of local, regional, state and national media of the Wollondilly Shire area, and the community’s attitudes towards development issues was somewhat distinct to the community attitudes documented in the City of Campbelltown.
Page 50 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Figure 3.19: Media Review of Wollondilly
Key community issues arising from a review of relevant media include
Page 51 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Issues related to development, land releases and housing markets
Environmental issues, and
Concerns about roads
3.3.5.2 Issues Related to Development, Land Releases & Housing Markets
A review of relevant media indicated that community attitudes to urban development in the Wollondilly shire were variable. Some land holders expressed concern over delays in rezoning from non-urban to residential, whereas other residents were concerned about impacts of urban development, such as decrements to air quality, health and native vegetation.
There was significant media coverage of urban development in Wilton Park which is set to see the population of Wilton treble. Community attitudes to this recent development were also variable and ranged from excitement to apprehension. However development of a rail terminal in Menangle was met with considerable community opposition and formation of Menangle Action Group.
The housing market in Wollondilly has not demonstrated the same trends as Campbelltown and the broader Sydney metropolitan region, with slumps in property prices. However, media coverage indicates that the recent increase in developer interest in the area has resulted in price rises.
3.3.5.3 Environmental Issues
Media coverage of the Wollondilly area had a stronger focus on environmental issues than Campbelltown, including concerns about decrements to native flora and fauna, Bargo River Gorge, as well as air quality. The Cumberland Landholder Incentives program has targeted Wollondilly landholders to revegetation their properties with native vegetation. The Wollondilly Council has also installed warning signs along road ways to protect native animals. The Shire of Wollondilly produces comprehensive State of The Environment Reports which detail issues associated with Land, Air, Water, Biodiversity, Waste, Noise, Aboriginal Heritage and Non Aboriginal Heritage.
3.3.5.4 Concerns About Roads
Media coverage indicated that considerable community concern was directed at the safety of Wollondilly roads which have recorded several fatalities. Consequently Wollondilly Shire council has received additional funding for road maintenance and upgrades.
3.3.6 Project Implications
Given the profiling undertaken, the following dot points outline the main issues relevant to the AGL proposal
Page 52 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
The Shire of Wollondilly has distinct community attitudes and conditions compared to the City of Campbelltown. This distinction may be related to the fact that Wollondilly borders the Sydney Metropolitan Region;
Media coverage of the Shire of Wollondilly indicates variable attitudes of residents towards urban development, with stronger scepticism than Campbelltown residents towards development;
The Shire of Wollondilly has a stronger focus on environmental issues including concerns regarding decrements to native flora and fauna, air quality and water systems;
The Shire of Wollondilly is characterised by natural reserves, water catchment areas and rural areas. As such it experiences different development pressures;
The nearest township to the AGL proposal site, Appin, has been used as an example Sydney’s urban sprawl negatively affecting historic communities through the development of housing insensitive to heritage issues;
Both Appin and the broader Wollondilly Shire have experienced growth in the amount of dwelling types in recent years.
Page 53 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
4. Community Attitudes Towards the Project
This section provides an overview of community attitudes towards the proposal as identified through two phases of consultation with key stakeholders.
4.1 Phase Two (Scoping) – Issue Themes
As outlined in Section 2 (Methodology), Phase two of the “Leafs Gully” social impact assessment program was designed to introduce the project to key stakeholders, focusing primarily on adjacent landholders, local councils, and key community and special interest groups, and to identify community issues in relation to the proposal.
Where questions were raised by participants, questions were addressed immediately, where possible, or a commitment made to provide feedback (see Appendix A for Frequently Asked Questions raised by participants).
Figure 4.1 provides a quantitative representation of issues raised during Phase Two of the program. To assist in the comparison of issues across stakeholder groups, issues have been categorised as landholder/non-landholder, as often issues differ according to the stakeholder’s proximity to the proposal. As the chart illustrates, the priority placed on specific issues differed depending on the stakeholder’s proximity to the site. For non- landholders, questions around water use, particularly in reference to the source of water, catchment zones, and potential impacts on the Nepean River, was the greatest priority area. This was followed equally by visual amenity, future plant expansion, traffic impacts and greenscaping opportunities.
For landholders, on the other hand, the areas of greatest priority were associated with potential rezoning and development opportunities for the area. In particular, questions around visual and noise impacts, possible plant expansion, air quality, land values, and possible “buffer zones” were the areas of highest concern for this group of stakeholders.
14
12
10
8 Landholder consultations
Non-landholder 6 consultations
Multiple response frequency response Multiple 4
2
0
t ty nt ty g y n e s nt ts s n e i ise n io ns ing s ite i io ni a al ni t o e s r nes en ac t ng e u o ualit zon c afety p dors m p ding No z q r cap o te n li ri l nditi s pr ia S o m ui eta o r foot i age i al am n of pl Air q Re nd ls f g b le cha u o Buffe a o ty cor ion veg s Land values a c/ c si t ge i fi Green prop health/ on a V ply Compensa p ti ity en p prov Mine subsidencea iver erit ts on Lifesty Cultural heritage u traf p Ina c ransmiss un H c s d A o T iod onstruc pa Public el B m ge/ R C Im a Roa om Future expansi s C r u e Wat Figure 4.1: Leafs Gully Power Project: Frequency of Issues Raised Phase 2 Consultations
Page 54 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
The following sub-sections provide a summary of the issue themes identified during the consultation process.
4.1.1 Awareness of the Proposed Project and Choice of Site
Except for a small number of prominent local landholders, most participants either had not previously heard of the proposed Leafs Gully Project, or had only heard of the project recently, either through the local media or direct contact by the company in late 2005.
Although most parties expressed appreciation of being contacted as part of the social assessment program, several were concerned that they had not been contacted earlier, prior to the formal commencement of the environmental and social assessment studies.
There was a widespread perception that the company had maintained a low profile in relation to the project and this was treated with considerable cynicism by several participants. There was also the view, by some, that the government process was ‘a fait accompl’i and that the project would go ahead irrespective of community concern.
“At which stage do we get to voice our disapproval? If government wants it to go ahead, then we can’t resist it”
“Why haven’t we been given ample opportunity to object. As a land holder I should have been contacted earlier”
One of the participant groups questioned the extent of the consultation process and asked if the consultations would be expanded to include Rosemeadow and St Helens Park residents and other community groups e.g. local schools. Mechanisms for involvement were also suggested by some participants, e.g. use of a website to provide information.
“You want to talk to them [the broader community] directly so that they don’t talk amongst themselves and come back at you with a pick axe”.
Four participants (three landholders and one environmental group) explicitly questioned the choice of site, stating that other sites to the east around Wollongong or south, outside of the greater Sydney area, would be better suited to such a development.
“Something as grand as a power station shouldn’t be in a town like Campbelltown. It should be further out. Building an extra few kilometres of gas pipeline is a small price to pay for a big company, for us it is a huge price; it’s the loss of our future”
“It seems amazingly stupid when you have a gas line going to South Australia to stick it here in a populated area, contributing to the greenhouse emissions in the area”.
“Only 4 kilometres from a growing town is totally the wrong spot for a power plant, particularly with the woodlands next door. Right down Marulan way where the company has already done a study would be a far better place… If they can build pipelines from Moomba to Sydney then they can build them anywhere”.
Other participants, mostly landholders, questioned the location of the project’s ‘footprint’ within the boundaries of the Leafs Gully property. Several of those who had previous knowledge of the proposed plant, suggested the plant was initially intended to be positioned closer to the training track, currently located on the Leafs Gully property. These
Page 55 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment landholders expressed disappointment that it had been moved closer to their property boundaries and requested clarification as to why this decision had been made.
4.1.2 Environmental Impacts: Visual Amenity, Air Quality, Noise and Water
Visual amenity was one of the key issues raised by participants. For landholders, the provision of an adequate visual buffer provided via trees, greenscaping and the creation of a visual bund, was considered critical to address visual impacts.
There were some concerns raised regarding whether visual pollution would be caused by emissions from the stacks, with at least one family group expressing concern that their property is particularly vulnerable to visual impacts by virtue of its elevated position. This family also questioned the night-time impacts of the plant, and any light pollution that might accompany the operation of the plant during both the construction and operational phases. Of the non-landholder participants, most questions on visual amenity were related to the visibility of the stacks from Appin Road.
The second most commonly raised issue was air quality. The potential toxicity of emissions, and the contribution these emissions might make to the existing air pollution problem in the Campbelltown basin, was of particular concern and was linked by some participants to broader public health issues such as asthma in children.
“The metro air study indicated that the Douglas Park air shed was a basin of dangerous emissions…. Peaking plants operate during times of the year in which inversion effects are most significant. As such the impact on air quality is likely to be greater.”
There was a perception expressed by one participant that potential emissions from the plant would have greater impact on Liverpool, while others were more concerned about potential smells and the effects of wind direction on the distribution of air emissions in the area.
The issue of noise was similarly raised, although mostly commonly by landholders in proximity to the site, rather than the broader community. One participant stated concern that any noise or air quality impacts from the plant would contribute to the existing pollution in the area, suggesting that:
“I can hear across the river the traffic noise at Menangle. The chickens from Inghams stink in the evenings and early mornings.”
Noise impacts were also raised in the context of the time of day of operations, i.e. night time versus day time, and possible excessive start-up noise that might be associated with the plant at the beginning of an operating cycle. For example, one particular participant operates a Christian retreat centre in the nearby vicinity and expressed concern that noise impacts would be particularly detrimental to their facility.
Issues relating to water were also raised, with several participants wanting to know where the plant’s water would be sourced, what would happen to excess water, and the potential impact on the Nepean River. The question of water run-off, for example, was raised in a number of the consultations, with one participant expressing concern about potential secondary impacts on the creek line.
Page 56 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
4.1.3 Impacts on Land Values and Rezoning Potential
There was broad acceptance among stakeholders interviewed, that the region in which Leafs Gully Farm is situated is increasingly becoming encompassed by the development of the south-west suburban corridor; and that this development will change the current semi-rural lifestyle of the area.
The majority of local landholders stated their intention to retain ownership of their properties in anticipation of the eventual rezoning of the area suitable for sub-division and suburban development. As such, the construction of a power plant was viewed negatively by local landholders because it was perceived to potentially inhibit future rezoning potential.
“The fact that they can’t tell us that it won’t affect us indicates that it will. I need to be told whether it will or won’t be the case. Don’t beat around the bush.”
“The effect on land values is the obvious problem. People have been sitting on land for a long time”.
Concerns that the Leafs Gully project will detrimentally impact land values and rezoning was most strongly expressed by landholders whose properties were immediately adjacent to the proposed site. Of the ten landholder groups consulted, seven highlighted land values and future rezoning as their major areas of concern with several stating they had purchased their properties specifically in anticipation of eventual rezoning and the possibility of exploiting urban subdivision opportunities. Several of the landholders stated they took a long-term view to potential rezoning and were willing to wait ten or twenty years if necessary to realize any sub-division potential. They were concerned that the presence of a power plant in the area would severely inhibit this potential.
Of the ten local landholders consulted, five raised the question of potential compensation.
“If we get compensation it will be fine, but they won’t give us money.”
“All this land is going to be sold off for residential. That’s all they [landholders] hold onto it for, selling it off.”
“The city is expanding and not enough land is being released, this is an important state issue. We have been excited about Appin and St Helens Park growing.”
Of the ten non-landholder groups consulted, a number of groups also raised the issues of land value and rezoning. These issues, however, were mentioned mostly in the context of noting the concerns of landholders rather than as an issue of general community concern.
4.1.4 “Buffer Zones” and Greenscaping of the Leafs Gully Site
In addition to issues associated with rezoning and land values, there was a perception that industrial development in the area would potentially affect livelihoods and be detrimental to the lifestyle currently afforded in the area. This concern was expressed particularly in respect to the aesthetic qualities of the area. However, concerns were also raised in respect to health and safety.
“We are not going to be here forever and our future is in that land.”
Page 57 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
“We thought that we had a beautiful farm in a growing area, but maybe we have nothing, but an area for 40 head of cattle a year.”
Amongst landholders, there was considerable discussion around the issue of “buffer zones”, with several participants wanting to know the precise distance between the proposed plant and their property boundaries; and whether the State Government or Campbelltown Council could impose a mandatory ‘zone of exclusion’ around the plant. This concern was raised in relation to both current and future planning requirements, with some participants questioning the potential for mandatory exclusion zones being imposed in the future.
“Is there a limit to the distance between the plant and the nearest house? Is the Council going to suddenly say they don’t want development within half a mile or more from the site?”
Several, community group participants raised the suggestion that AGL might consider greenscaping to improve visual amenity and to rehabilitate the Leafs Gully property. One participant suggested a greenscaping program could be implemented as part of a comprehensive plan of management for the Leafs Gully site. Other stakeholders, such as environmental groups, suggested the proposed project offered an opportunity to revegetate the site using locally appropriate plants and seeds, thereby contributing to the preservation of flora in the area.
4.1.5 Operational Potential and Future Plant Expansion
Concern about potential expansion of the proposed power plant and its operational capacity in the future, was one of the most dominant stakeholder issues. This concern was raised in eleven consultation sessions. There was a perception that the proposed peaking plant could extend operational capacity and operate as a base load plant at a later date.
“It may only be a peak demand plant at the moment but it will be the perfect spot for a full-time plant later… foot in the door sort of thing.”
“There is no guarantee that it wouldn’t run continuously in the future. The idea of it running 24/7 in 10 years time is really concerning.”
Some scepticism was expressed by stakeholders about the predicted operational potential of the plant. Some stakeholders expressed doubts as to why AGL would consider making such a financial investment in a plant that only operates 2-3% of the time, a figure stated in the project application and Community Information Sheet.
“It doesn’t seem viable to spend 360 million dollars for 2-3% of the time”
Generally speaking, stakeholders understood that operating a gas turbine power plant for extended periods of time was unlikely to be financially viable in the current economic environment and accepted this as explanation for the predicted operational output of the plant. However, there was a perception that future economic conditions may make enhanced operational capacity viable. Stakeholders expressed concern that as the cost of electricity increases, so the capacity of the plant would also increase.
Some stakeholders expressed concern that possible expansion of the plant and its operational potential would result in greater social and environmental impacts. There was a perception that once the plant was established, other facilities would be constructed on the site in order to centralise operations.
Page 58 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Concerns were also expressed about other potential impacts associated with the plant, such as enhanced gas mining in the area to provide fuel supplies. There was a perception that the community would have limited opportunities to oppose future development and expansion in this regard.
“It is 10 times harder to stop expansion than it is to stop construction”
4.1.6 Other Issues: Road Traffic, Mine Subsidence, Public Safety, Flora and Fauna
Of the remaining issues, the condition of Appin Road and the impact of increased road traffic, particularly during the construction period, were raised by several participants, particularly community stakeholders. Appin Road is recognized by locals as a particularly dangerous road, which carries high volumes of traffic, and it was generally considered that the proposed plant would only contribute to this problem.
“More people are killed on that corner of road and the entry needs to be away from the bend and the trees. They’d have to widen the road and make a slip lane”.
Mine subsidence was raised in three of the consultations, with participants questioning the safety of building a power plant in an area currently earmarked for underground mining.
A related area of concern was public safety and security, and the possibility of a power plant being targeted as part of terrorist activities or, alternatively, experiencing a catastrophic accident. One participant suggested that even if these fears were unfounded, people frequently ‘perceive’ danger and that this could inhibit the area’s potential to attract newcomers.
One participant group raised the question of the area’s status as a biodiversity corridor and koala habitat, and posed the question that the site could potentially contribute to biodiversity by enhancing these features of the local area through appropriate management plans and strategies.
“It could be possible to almost make a corridor around the site and bring birds in.”
4.1.7 Potential for Opposition
Of the landholders consulted, two stated explicitly that they would oppose the project on the grounds of detrimental impacts on land values and rezoning potential. Two additional objections were lodged, one in writing and one verbally via telephone, by landholders who declined to meet directly with Coakes Consulting or AGL as part of the consultation process. Several other landholders indicated during consultation that they were considering opposing the project but were taking a “wait and see” approach until further information was made available to them during the second round of consultation in Phase 4.
“I will oppose [the project] unless compensation is granted.”
“I am opposed to anything that is detrimental to future development”
“Who wants to live near a power plant? [but] if it goes ahead I won’t oppose it”.
Page 59 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Of the community groups consulted, the majority of participants did not voice any personal objections to the project. In this regard, it was suggested that the broader community “doesn’t mind expansion, but they don’t want spoilage”.
The only group who expressed significant reservations about the project and indicated they may be objectors was one of the environmental groups and these objections were for the most part based on concerns about the potential impact of emissions on air quality.
4.2 Phase Four (EA Feedback and Strategy Development)
As outlined in Section 2 of this report, consultation in Phase 4 of the program involved the provision of feedback on the studies undertaken as part of the environmental assessment program and an overview of the strategies to be employed by the company, should the proposal be approved, to address and manage issues raised by the community in phase 2. In this round of consultation, a few additional issues were also raised by stakeholders.
For landholders, issues of most concern related to visual amenity, noise impacts, and operating times, and the influence these factors may have on future land values and the potential for property zoning. For the broader community, traffic and environmental impacts remained the highest priority areas. Air quality was an area of interest across all the stakeholder groups consulted.
4.2.1 Operating Times
One of the most frequently raised issues in Phase Two (Scoping) was the question of plant operation and the proposition that a gas turbine power plant, such as the one planned for the Leafs Gully development, could operate for only 2-3 percent of the time and still be a viable proposition for AGL. In response to this, participants were provided with information on the economics of peaking power plants and the operating times of comparable plants currently located in Australia. Only one participant continued to express very strong concerns about operating times following this explanation. 4.2.2 Visual Amenity
Although the outcomes of the Visual Assessment were well received by most landholders, several participants raised questions around the vantage points that had been selected and used for the visual assessment. There were concerns noted that the visual modelling did not adequately represent the plant’s potential visual impacts from certain vantage points around the site. In response to these concerns, AGL committed to conduct some additional modelling for specific landholders. A commitment was also made to make available to landholders, all the photographs taken as part of the visual assessment. One landholder also requested further investigations into lowering the plant below ground level.
Some participants also raised questions about potential light pollution that may be caused by the plants spot lights. The planned mitigation measures, which include shielding night lights, reassured most participants that light impacts could be managed effectively.
Page 60 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
4.2.3 Noise Impacts
Noise was also a key issue for landholders. In order to provide neighbouring landholders with as much information as possible about potential noise impacts to their properties, the noise assessment was based on impacts at the boundaries of the Leafs Gully property rather than at nearby sensitive receptors as is the usual requirement for assessments of this type. The noise modelling, completed to date, was presented to stakeholders and the variations in the measurements of noise levels at the boundaries of the Leafs Gully property explained. Unfortunately the noise impact assessments were not finalised at the time of the consultation process, hence AGL has committed to follow-up with all neighbouring landholders once the Environmental Assessment is on public exhibition. One participant, a nearby landholder, was offered noise monitoring at the residence on their property to measure current levels of background noise. Because noise monitoring for the project took place at property boundaries, this information was not previously collected as part of the project’s noise assessment.
4.2.4 Air Quality
Impacts on air quality and the Sydney air shed was an area of concern across all groups consulted. The outputs of the Air Quality Assessment were reviewed in detail with stakeholders, most of whom expressed a sense of reassurance that the air quality impacts of the plant were minimal. One stakeholder, however, did question the cumulative effect of industrial development and the extent to which the totality of development in the Campbelltown / Appin area may exacerbate current air quality problems in southern Sydney and thereby jeopardise future rezoning potential. Another participant queried the impact of frequent plant start-ups on air emissions and asked if these would be worse than air emissions from a continuous operating plant. The AGL Project Manager present at the consultations provided response to concerns raised.
4.2.5 Traffic Impacts
The safety of Appin Road remains a major concern for local residents and was raised by a number of participants during the consultation process. However, amongst the general community, these concerns related largely to road safety; and the Leafs Gully plant was not generally viewed as constituting a major negative traffic impact.
The landholders potentially most affected by traffic from the Leafs Gully project are those who reside opposite the Leafs Gully turnoff. Although initially concerned with potential traffic impacts, particularly during the construction phase, these landholders responded very positively to the company’s proposal to install right turning lanes, one in each direction, at the entrance to the Leafs Gully site and the residence directly across the road from the site.
One participant strongly advocated the inclusion of cycle paths in any AGL planning on road use.
4.2.6 Environmental Impacts, Water Management and Revegetation
The company’s proposal to rehabilitate sections of the Leafs Gully property with locally appropriate revegetation, and to reconnect patches of existing bushland surrounding the proposed plant, was well received by participants. One of the Environmental groups
Page 61 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment consulted requested that AGL consider entering a Conservation Agreement with the Wildlife Service as a measure of good will towards the environment.
Concerns were raised about possible run-off from the collection pond to be situated at the rear of the proposed plant and whether the nutrients from this run-off could trigger a weed infestation of the bushland adjacent to the Nepean River. This participant proposed that AGL consider pumping the water from this pond up to the grass on the opposite side of the plant, thereby watering the grass while protecting the native bushland. It was also proposed that AGL consider extending the earth mound, or bund, to guide water away from the plant for run-off purposes.
4.2.7 Other Issues
4.2.7.1 Location of Plant on the Site
One participant strongly questioned the location of the plant in the context of the overall Leafs Gully site, expressing concern that the plant was not more centrally located towards the middle of the property. Explanations as to site choice and the inhibitive logistics of positioning the plant elsewhere on the site did not allay the concerns of this family group.
4.2.7.2 Example of Other Plants Close to Housing
One participant requested that examples be provided of other plants located elsewhere in Australia or internationally that are positioned close to housing. The intent of this request was to provide an informed context in which the discussion and concerns around potential future rezoning could be conducted.
4.2.7.3 Security
The question of site security measures was raised by one participant in the context of ensuring that people cannot access nearby properties via AGL’s land. Some questions were asked by landholders about the provision of security fencing, however fencing was considered to also result in visual impacts for neighbouring landholders. .
4.2.7.4 Cultural Heritage Management
It was proposed by one of the Indigenous stakeholders that AGL give consideration to the development of a plan of management in respect of Cultural Heritage for the whole of the Leafs Gully site. This participant stated that, while not opposed to the development, it was nevertheless important that cultural heritage be preserved.
Page 62 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
5. Economic Contribution
5.1 Economic Assessment
The Economic Assessment, including an analysis of the potential impact of the Leafs Gully project on land values in the Gilead area, has been undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment produced by URS (please refer to Section 16 of the environmental assessment).
Page 63 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
6. Project Related Change
If approved, the construction phase of the Leafs Gully Project will be relatively short and span an 18 month to two year period. The construction phase will involve employment of up to 50 people, some of whom will be specialist engineering staff. Where possible, local contractors and supply companies will be utilised for the provision of labour and services during the construction phase.
Once operational, the Leafs Gully project will employ the equivalent of 5 full-time staff. Population impacts in the region are likely to be minimal given the relatively short construction phase and the low numbers of full-time operational employees.
Page 64 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
7. Impact Management
As has been highlighted earlier in this report, a development proposal may bring benefits to particular individuals or groups and negative impacts or costs to others. Consequently, if negative impacts are predicted, it is the role of social impact assessment to determine how such impacts may be ameliorated, mitigated or managed to produce the minimum degree of disruption to those affected.
Mitigation strategies are processes, programs or plans designed to address the perceived impacts/issues raised by stakeholders during the assessment process. Such strategies can go some way toward ensuring that perceived impacts raised by the community are addressed or offset in an appropriate manner. In some instances, a particular strategy may fully address the concern raised. However, in other instances, where particular values are held, such strategies may only assist in making a proposal more acceptable to the community, rather than changing the values held by particular stakeholder groups. In contrast, other strategies may serve to enhance the positive impacts associated with a project.
In response to the perceived issues/impacts raised by the community in Section 4 of this report, AGL has identified a range of possible mitigation and amelioration strategies that could be employed to address community concerns.
With respect to the environmental issues raised in relation to the project, these issues have been subject to specific specialist reports as part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. Further discussion and details of proposed mitigation strategies can be found in the Draft Statement of Commitment.
7.1 Strategies
The following section summarises the recommended mitigation strategies in response to community priority areas raised in consultation.
7.1.1 Flora and Fauna
In response to concerns about the impact of the plant on the ecologically sensitive area surrounding the site, AGL has committed to the following strategy:
To conduct extensive tree planting and revegetation with native plants to enhance vegetation surrounding the proposed plant. AGL will work with local specialists, such as representatives of the Wollondilly Shire Seed Bank, to ensure any revegetation is appropriate to the local flora and fauna.
7.1.2 Traffic Impacts
In response to concerns about road safety on Appin Road and increased traffic flow during the construction phase, AGL has committed to the following strategy:
AGL will be responsible for road upgrades and maintenance that are directly related to damage or road design issues caused by operational and
Page 65 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
construction activity. AGL proposes to install turning lanes in both directions at the junction of Leafs Gully turnoff and Appin Road. 7.1.3 Visual Amenity
In response to concerns relating to the visual impacts of the plant and stacks, particularly in respect to nearby properties and future development due to rezoning, AGL has committed to the following strategies:
Development of an earth mound, or bund, constructed on the site along the crest running to the north east of the plant. The mound will be vegetated with an appropriate selection of native trees and shrubs. The mound will be six metres in height and will partially mitigate visual as well as noise impacts from the plant. Fill extracted from the civil works will be used to level the site and in the preparation of appropriate foundations for the bund. No fill will be brought into, or leave, the site.
Prominent features of the plant will be painted in colours consistent with the surrounding landscape to further reduce visual impacts.
7.1.4 Noise Impacts
In response to concerns relating to noise impacts from the plant, particularly at properties immediately adjacent to the Leafs Gully property, AGL has committed to the following strategy:
Development of an earth mound, or bund, constructed on the site along the crest running to the north east of the plant. As previously discussed, this mound/bund will go some way in further reducing/mitigating noise impacts from the plant.
AGL will specify to equipment suppliers that noise levels must be guaranteed for the plant; and the plant will undergo appropriate commissioning to ensure that noise mitigation strategies are effective.
7.1.5 Water
In response to concerns of water run-off from the site and the impact on local water supply, AGL has committed to the following strategies:
The site will be fully contained with a sedimentation pond and other control measures to capture run off.
All stormwater run off from the compound will be discharged through pollutant traps, designed to remove any oil or rubbish. The plant will recycle water internally until it is evaporated or is no longer suitable for use. Water from plant operations will be diverted to an evaporation pond, plastic lined to protect against mine subsidence effects.
Consideration will be given to pumping the water from the collection pond at the rear of the plant onto the grass at the front of the plant.
Page 66 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
7.1.6 Air Quality
In response to concerns relating to air quality and emissions, AGL has committed to the following strategy:
AGL will explore the impacts of air quality emissions on rain water drinking supplies.
7.1.7 Aboriginal and European Cultural Heritage
In response to concerns relating to aboriginal and European cultural heritage, AGL has committed to the following strategies:
AGL will apply to the Department of Environment and Conservation for a permit to conduct sub-surface investigations on the site to determine the existence of Aboriginal artefacts.
AGL will consult with the Sydney Catchment Authority and the NSW Heritage Office to ensure adequate protection measures during construction and access to the Upper Canal.
8. Monitoring
A key aspect of any social impact statement is the identification of specific mechanisms and indicators that may be implemented to monitor any potential impacts associated with the development over time.
Given the concerns expressed by local landholders, it is advisable that AGL establish a social impact monitoring program to enable the effective monitoring of future potential impacts of the plant on the local area. This may involve:
Consultation with landholders in proximity to the site during key phases of project development i.e. pre-construction, construction and operation. Such a program would include personal meetings with landholders, provision of a diary of construction of events and a site visit prior to operation.
Ongoing consultation with local landholders and key community groups to inform them of plant progress. Such consultation could be undertaken 6 monthly or annually to identify and respond to any issues raised by stakeholders relating to the plant’s operation.
Development of partnership projects through AGL’s corporate community contributions program e.g. development of vegetation corridors, biodiversity enhancement, support for local community initiatives.
Page 67 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
9. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Leafs Gully project, unlike many other industrial developments, is not likely to have a significant impact on the wider community in the area, due to its size, limited operating times, and location. Nevertheless, the concerns raised by the community, in particular nearby landholders, indicate the potential for significant negative community feedback, particularly in construction and early operational phases of the project.
While a number of social and environmental issues have been raised by local landholders in relation to the proposed development, these issues are generally localised to immediate properties surrounding the site.
While it is acknowledged that neighbouring landholders are, for the most part, opposed to the construction of the plant, it is anticipated that the mitigation measures introduced by the company in response to community feedback, will go a long way toward ameliorating landholder concerns. However, should the development be approved, it will be necessary to ensure that ongoing dialogue with local landholders continues to effectively monitor the social and environmental impacts of the operation over time.
Page 68 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
10. References Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001)
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996)
Australian Electoral Commission (2006). Retrieved from http://www.aec.gov.au/
Australian Financial Review: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Australian Property Investor (ABIX Abstracts: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Canberra Times: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
City of Campbelltown Council (2004). Campbelltown city social plan 2004-2009.
City of Campbelltown Council (2004). 2004-2009 Road Safety Strategic Plan. Vol 1
Daily Telegraph: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Department of Planning (2005). City Of Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s Future.
Global Power Report: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Illawarra Mercury: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Liverpool Leader: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Macarthur Chronicle: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
McGill, J., Fowler, V., & Richardson, K. (1995). Campbelltown’s Streets and Suburbs- How and why they got their names. Campbelltown and Airds Historical Society.
Mount Gilead Group (2006). History and description. Retrieved from
Mt Druitt/St Marys Standard: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, 9 August 2000, article 19. Appin Road Fatalities
Page 69 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, 7 June 2001, article 35. Menangle and Appin Roads
Penrith Press: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Profle.id (2002a). City of Campbelltown Community Profile
Profile.id (2002b). Wollondilly Shire Council Community Profile
Power in Asia: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
State Electoral Office (NSW)(2006). Retrieved from http://www.seo.nsw.gov.au/data/assets/pdf_file/893/camden.pdf
Sun Herald (2006). Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Sunday Telegraph: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
The Australian: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
The Sydney Morning Herald: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Townsville Bulletin: Retrieved from Factiva http://global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/sb/default.aspx?NAPC=S&fcpil=en
Wollondilly Shire Council (2006): Retrieved from http://www.wollondilly.nsw.gov.au/
Wollongong City Library. Retrieved from http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/library/localinfo/aboriginal.html
Page 70 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Appendix A
Frequently Asked Questions: AGL Leafs Gully Power Project Phase Two Scoping (Identification of Issues)
CHOICE OF SITE, POTENTIAL BUFFER ZONES and FUTURE ZONING
Why not use other types of energy generation instead of just investing in peaking plants?
There was a suggestion that the footprint would be further down on the [Leafs Gully] site. Why has it been moved?
Why are they choosing this site when there are many way further down south along the gas line?
What is the exact amount of distance required for the buffer zone?
OPERATIONAL UTILITY SUPPLIES AND ELECTRICITY OUTPUTS
Where will the power go once it is generated?
Why are they not using the gas out of the mines?
Is the methane from Sydney gas down the road associated with the proposed plant?
Where is the water coming from?
Would you be mining for more gas, will you need more supply?
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
When will the project be in the construction phase?
How long is the construction period?
What works are involved outside of the site in terms of infrastructures and services?
What will the hours of construction be?
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
What sort of traffic volume will there be?
Will the company contribute to Appin Road upgrades and maintenance?
Where will they be carting materials in and out from, Appin or Campbelltown?
Page 71 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
IMPACTS ON LAND VALUES / POSSIBLE COMPENSATION
The area may not be included in the Metro access Plan at this current time, but what about the future?
Will the company offer any compensation to affected landholders?
If land is severely affected is there room for the land to be non-compulsorily acquired?
PLANT CAPACITY AND FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT
Is the second stage to go beyond a peaking plant and increase capacity?
Why bother spending millions if the plant will only operate 2-3% of the time?
What will happen with the rest of the site in terms of regeneration?
What height will the mound be around the footprint?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MINE SUBSIDENCE
Can you see the stacks from Appin road?
Do they have to clear trees from the power plant for access to the Transgrid network and will this affect visual impacts?
What approval from the mine subsidence board is required?
What impact will there be on the water quality and quantity of the Nepean river?
Will there be any discharge into the river?
What are the noise impacts?
What is the impact on air quality and smog?
What are the approved limits for air emission and regulation?
OTHER QUESTIONS
Would the company make community contributions such as ongoing maintenance in the town?
Will community consultation be extended to Rosemeadow and St Helens Park residents?
Page 72 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Appendix B
Stakeholder Consultations by Category: Phases Two (Scoping) and Four (EA Feedback) May and July 2006
Category Affiliation/ Participants Phase Two: Number of Phase Four: Number of Business Scoping participants EA Feedback participants Landholders / Kyluk Pty Ltd Michael ‘Steven’ Centiempo 1 1 Residents Sheraton Homes Samuel Mir 1
Sebastian Holdings Michael Gerace 1
Inghams Enterprises Michael Parkinson 1 1
Ellel Ministries Diane Watson (Manager) & 2 Paul Ryan (Mbr leadership team) Phillips Family 2
Winkim Holdings Alloggia Family 5 3
Muir Family 4 2 (verbal and written consultation also with Mr Peter Winn, executor, estate of Mrs Vida Muir) Macarthur-Onslow family 3 3
Moreton Park Pty Ernest Dupere 1 1 Ltd El Bethel Russell Halfpenny 1 1
John & Janelle Matic, landholders opposite Leafs Gully 2 Appin Rd Lydia & Peter King, landholders opposite Leafs Gully 2 Appin Rd Jean Ellison, landholder opposite Leafs Gully Appin Rd 1
Tenants Confidential 1 1
Page 73 of 74 AGL Leafs Gully Power Project July 2006 Social Assessment
Business Appin Chamber of Ernie Ring, David Camilleri, Debbie Quick, Julianne 6 1 Commerce Rawcliffe, David Raw, Stephen Chapman Environmental National Parks Pat & Barry Durman 2 2 Association Cataract River Rob Michie 1 Action Party Upper Nepean River John Stanham 1 Users Association Aboriginal Cubbitch Barta Glenda Chalker 1 Aboriginal Group Tharawal Land Robyn Williams 1 Council Local Wollondilly Shire Norman Jew; David Smith & Steven Moon 3 2 Government Council Campbelltown Shire Scott Phillips 1 Council State MLA for Camden Geoffrey Corrigan 1 Government MLA for Graham West 1 Campbelltown State Authorities Sydney Catchment Graham Attenborough & 1 1 & Services Authority Malcolm Hughes NSW Rural Fire Dennis McTaggart 1 Service Industry Illawarra Coal BHPB Zina Ainsworth; Rob 2 community office Total Consulted 40 28
Page 74 of 74
Environmental Assessment Summary Community information sheet 3 – October 2006
Background
As outlined previously in Community Information Sheets 1 This information sheet (No.3 in the series) provides a guide & 2, AGL is seeking Project Approval, under Part 3A of the to the Environmental Assessment (EA) by outlining key Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, to construct findings and directing the community to areas of interest. and operate a 600MW gas turbine power station near Appin, It is recommended that anyone requiring more detailed NSW. This project is known as the ‘Leafs Gully Power Project’ information in relation to any aspect of the EA contact AGL or Coakes Consulting to obtain a copy of the full assessment.
Why a Power Plant at Consultation with our restrict the ability of landholders to Leafs Gully? community realise future development potential;
Growth in peak electricity demand It was fundamental to our assessment • the inclusion of a vegetated earth in NSW will soon exceed existing process that we initiate and maintain mound designed to fit with the natural generating capacity. To meet this growth open communication with our topography and to mitigate visual in demand, a number of additional power stakeholders. Coakes Consulting has impacts; plants will be required to serve peaking managed this process, with two phases of • a proposal to rehabilitate the northern capacity. formal consultation being conducted in part of the property to link isolated May and July 2006. This program aimed The Leafs Gully Power Project is AGL’s remnant vegetation with the ecological at ensuring that all stakeholders were proposed contribution to meet rising community along the Nepean River informed of the project parameters, the electricity demand. The objective is to using seeds native to the area. outcomes of the Environmental and Social generate electricity at peak times, close • Permanent protection of 65 hectares Assessment process, and were given the to the high demand area of Sydney, to of a valuable vegetation community opportunity to have input into the project ensure reliable supplies are delivered. under a Voluntary Conservation throughout the assessment process. Leafs Gully Power Plant is intended to be Agreement. The subject land is to operated as a peaking power plant only The issues that dominated the concerns the west of the Upper Canal and and generation levels would not exceed of landholders and non-landholders comprises over 1 kilometre of river 15% in any year. included: frontage for the Nepean River. AGL investigated numerous sites in NSW • visual amenity For further details regarding the before settling on this site in the Appin • potential for future expansion of plant Community Consultation program, area. As well as being close to the market, refer to Chapter 6 of the EA. the site has superior transmission access • air quality and access to two gas pipelines. AGL • traffic impacts conducted preliminary studies reviewing • impacts on land values air quality, flora and fauna, heritage, mine subsidence and planning issues before Given feedback from the community, Leafs Gully Farm was selected. Access a number of modifications have been to infrastructure, land availability and made to the proposal, including: the proximity of sensitive receptors were • detailed noise modeling to ensure INFORMATION determining factors in selecting this site. noise levels at the site boundary do not MORNING
Appin House Saturday 11 November, 9.00am-12noon. See back page for details. 1 A guide to the key Potential for future findings of the EA expansion of the plant The power station is designed to operate Set out below are the key findings of the as a peaking power plant only and as EA, with particular focus on the key areas such will operate for no more than of concern to stakeholders. 15% of the year. The operating hours Visual amenity of the Leafs Gully Power Project will The Visual Assessment concluded that the not increase over time as other power proposed Leafs Gully Power Plant would plants would be constructed to meet have a low visual impact on people in intermediate and base load demand. areas surrounding the site. A total of Air quality 27 view locations were selected and The local air quality assessment focuses assessed as part of the visual assessment on emissions from the power plant and process. their impacts locally (within 10kms of The 35 metres high gas turbine stacks are the proposed site). The modeling was the most visually prominent components based on a worst-case scenario of 24- of the power station. Of the 27 view hour operation under all atmospheric be conducive to photochemical smog locations, 15 had a nil visibility rating, conditions. The modeling found events). The modeling found that under 11 a low visibility rating and 1 a that ground level concentrations of continuous operations on an ozone moderate visibility rating. This is due to emissions from the power station under event day there is no substantial adverse a combination of existing trees, natural adverse weather conditions are below impact on photochemical smog formation landforms and the construction of an the Department of Environment and occurring as a result of the power plant earth mound to the north and north east Conservation regulatory criteria. As such operation. of the site, tree planting on the mound the impact on local air quality from this and other supplementary planting and development would be minor. The assessments described above are lighting design (see photograph below). conservative and are based on continuous A regional air quality assessment was operations, well in excess of that also undertaken, which focused on For further details regarding the Visual proposed. As a peaking power station, photochemical smog, the air pollution Assessment, refer to Chapter 9 of the EA. the Leafs Gully Power Project will only phenomenon of concern in the south operate for up to 15% of the time and western parts of Sydney. CSIRO were any air quality impacts that may occur engaged to assess the regional formation will be much less than if it were operating of ozone and nitrogen dioxide when continuously. the plant is operational under different conditions on five selected ozone event For further information regarding days (Ozone event days are days with the Air Quality Assessments, refer to meteorological conditions known to Chapter 7 of the EA.
Vantage point: neighbouring property to the north east showing location of proposed plant and degree of visibility of stacks
2 Environmental Assessment Summary Community information sheet 3 – October 2006
Traffic impacts the Metropolitan Strategy over the next 25 • where modeling of impacts was to 30 years for the surrounding areas to carried out it was on the basis of worst The traffic and transport assessment be developed into urban residential land; case scenario, considered cumulative found that the arterial road network as such the ‘speculative premium’ of this impacts with existing known facilities, can satisfactorily and safely accept land is limited. However, notwithstanding and utilised conservative assumptions; the additional traffic generated by the that there is no existing plan for urban development during the construction, • potential impacts identified are development in this area, should the operational and maintenance phases with capable of being mitigated and land surrounding the Development Site one qualification: the proposed development does be re-zoned for residential development, not represent a threat of serious or • A separate right turn lane priority the Leafs Gully Power Project has been irreversible environmental damage; intersection be installed at the Appin planned such that the environmental and Road/access road intersection. impacts of the power station would not • biological diversity and ecological In addition, to improve property access affect this future potential. integrity of the area would not be conditions for a property driveway on AGL has adopted a conservative affected by the proposed development. the eastern side of Appin Road, located approach as part of the Environmental opposite the access road for the site, the Assessment and has proposed mitigating For further information regarding right turn opportunity will be extended measures greater than strictly necessary. the Regulatory Framework refer to to include a separate lane access for that In particular, the visual assessment and Chapter 5 of the EA. property. noise assessment have considered the potential for residential development on For further information regarding Public Exhibition neighbouring properties. Traffic Impacts, refer to Chapter 10 of The EA is currently on display for 30 days the EA. For further information regarding at the following locations: Land Use & Property Impacts, refer to • Department of Planning, Impacts on land values Chapter 15 of the EA. Information Centre, 23-33 Bridge St, The implications for the surrounding Sydney areas, both currently and in the future, Regulatory and from the proposed Power Project are community requirements • Campbelltown City Council, important issues for the local community. The Environmental Assessment has cnr Queen and Broughton Sts, There are two main issues of concern in been produced to satisfy the following Campbelltown this regard: regulatory and community requirements: An electronic version of the • the effect on the current value of the • Environmental Planning and Environmental Assessment and earlier surrounding lands; Assessment Act 1979; information sheets are available for download from the AGL web site at • opportunity cost of land over the next • Campbelltown City Council; www.agl.com.au/leafsgully 10 to 30 years. • Specific requirements identified by In terms of current value, the existing the Department of Planning Director- value of land surrounding the General; and Development Site is based on its current • Local residents and businesses. use, which is zoned non-urban. However, it has been suggested that part of the As a result of these various requirements, current value of the land surrounding AGL is satisfied that: the proposed project is based on a belief • environmental issues associated that in the future this land will be zoned with the proposed development of residential, and hence will be developed the power station have been fully for housing purposes. considered; There are no existing plans identified in
3 INFORMATION Conceptual project design and preliminary MORNING environmental assessment Appin House 150 Appin Road, Saturday 11 November, Planning Focus Meeting 9.00am-12noon.
Submit Project Application We would like to invite the community to attend an Information Morning, to Government provision of specific provide an opportunity for Environmental Assessment requirements you to meet with company representatives informally Commencement of environmental and social InvolvementCommunity to discuss any aspect of the impact studies project or concerns that you may have. Refinement of project design and Morning tea will be provided. completion of assessment studies We hope to see you there. Lodgement of draft EA and Statement of Commitments
Public Exhibition of final EA and Statement of We are Commitments here
Final assessment of EA and Statement of Commitments by DoP
Minister for Planning determines whether approval should be granted
FURTHER INFORMATION
We would like to thank the Justin Flood Dr Sheridan Coakes community for their involvement Project Manager Director in this process and their valuable The Australian Gas Light Company Coakes Consulting feedback. If you would like any Ph: (02) 9921 2092 Mobile: 0412 510 529 further information regarding the EA, Mobile: 0439 214 009 Email: [email protected] please contact: Email: jfl[email protected]
Facilitated by SC/CO21e-9
The Australian Gas Light Company 72 Christie Street, St Leonards NSW 2065 SOCIAL IMPACT AND COMMUNITY CONSULTANTS Tel: (02) 9921 2999 Fax: (02) 9921 2552 PO Box 30 Bowral NSW 2576 Postal Address: Telephone 02 4862 3936
Locked Bag 1837, St Leonards NSW 2065 Facsimile 02 4862 3936 © 2006 Sheridan Coakes Consulting Pty Ltd
4 Appendix B – Part 2
Phase 5 Consultation Materials
+&,+- , ..., / ,0 " ",1 2/ 3 4 "0 ' + $5 0 " $-0 6 $'
4 ! " 4 786 9"4 "0 - *(. 4 :%-##$(
/ 4 ! "
# 3 ! 88 0 "7 613 ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " 6 0 ! 31 3 7 " ! 388 " 9 !# Q ! 31 8 R5
? 9 6 9 ! "$167 " 88 0 " 6 " 8 # ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " " 31 7 9 !# R8 < 0 0 7 "5
) 9 ";0 " "9 ! <! ";$ 19 ! 9 ! 88 0 " " $. 0 " 9! ! ! 7 ;! 6 ! 7 6 3 8 < ";8 9 " "9 !# 5
/ ";$. 1 7 ! " " " 0 ! 0 6 9" # ;; # ;; " !4" 4 5%! 9 8 " 6 "< 0 "0 3 8 < ";8 9 "5%! 30 "0 &
• 00 ; " 0 0 " 9 <0 ""0 "@
• 8 " " "7" 78 0 @
• 6 3 "@
• 6 39 @
• @ "
• 0 7 5
%! 90 "0 ! 31 !7 88 8 "9 !# 3 8 < ";8 9 "5A 7 " " 70 *0 6 8 0 0*80 "6 ! " 7 30 77" 78 0 "8 9 ;" " 0 75
" 7"7 B 8 B0 88 0 "3 31 9 67 " $.5
1 " 98 ; "; ! 31 8 9 ! !/8 7" 3 "" ";5
!" #$ % &$'$((( ) *&$'$((((( $-0 6 $' ;$ %!0 " 8 8 33 " < 80 3 7 !3 " 3 67 "$5 %!8 B0 9 " 963 1 0 " 0 " 8 #; 6 "8 9 " ! ! " #8 " 5
%!8 B0 9 0 78 9 ; 6 ";" 3 "( # 0! 9! 0!9 8 3 " 7 ! "(C 3 ! 5%!8 9 " 8 8 66 " ; 3 7$'!0 ! 9 !8 " 9 008 " !0 3 ! 9 9 3 7 " ";" ;!6 5
A78 " ;8 8 " 3 ! 7 " "; "9 6 ! 6 "8 0 3 7 3 87" ! 68 "; ;" 3 0 " 0 8 0 3 633 D " "0 " ";3 " ;!6 ";8 8 5%! 6 0< 6 B " ";8 8 " 6 " 87" 31 * 7 ;" 9!"0 78 9 ! ! 3 ! 0 " 8 "; 7 8 " 5
%!; 6 " 97 " 0!" ; "9 8 "; " " ; 3 5 A"3 0 9!" 8 "; ! 8 38 " 8 0B 9 E ! 3 !; "! ; 7 " ! " ! 8 9 " "9 !# 5
1 0 77 7 "; " "7" 6 ; " 31 5:* " " !330 " F " "8 " ! ! 78 0 ! 6"0 78 9 !" 3 " ";5
G 9 1 0<" 9 ; ! 7" "7" 9 " 3 "; ! ; " $ 88 0 "5%! 6 "; <" " " !" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
"08 B0 "08 " 0 78 !" 0 " "8 ; 7! 6"0 "0 9 ! <! 5 "; 3" "7" ! 6" " 3 " !9 6 " !:" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
#" ! ! 78 ; "0 " 0 3 "76 38 8 9 ! " $<7 3 ! 31 3 74 "0 " 8 3 7 " 0 " "6 ! "3 7 " " 6 68 O8 0 P5
19 < " !4 "0 0 77" " ! 8 8 5"67 "! 667 7 8""26 < J 0 850 763 $'-0 6 $'5 " 88 " 9 6 6 7 <67 " 0 !/8 7" 3 "" "; "; ! *! 6 "8 3 !8 B0 :" "7" 7" 5
) ! "3 7 " ; "; !8 8 0 "6 03 79995 ; 3; 50 75 6 00 "; !/8 7" 3 "" ";96 99958 "" ";5"95; 5 5
? 3 !3
"" < 0 4 " "
+&,+- , ..., / ,0 " ",1 2/ 3 4 "0 ' + $5 0 " $-0 6 $'
1" " ; 4 786 9"4 "0 - *(. 4 :%-##$(
/ %
# 3 ! 88 0 "7 613 ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " 6 0 ! 31 3 7 " ! 388 " 9 !# Q ! 31 8 R5
? 9 6 9 ! "$167 " 88 0 " 6 " 8 # ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " " 31 7 9 !# R8 < 0 0 7 "5
) 9 ";0 " "9 ! <! ";$ 19 ! 9 ! 88 0 " " $. 0 " 9! ! ! 7 ;! 6 ! 7 6 3 8 < ";8 9 " "9 !# 5
/ ";$. 1 7 ! " " " 0 ! 0 6 9" # ;; # ;; " !4" 4 5%! 9 8 " 6 "< 0 "0 3 8 < ";8 9 "5%! 30 "0 &
• 00 ; " 0 0 " 9 <0 ""0 "@
• 8 " " "7" 78 0 @
• 6 3 "@
• 6 39 @
• @ "
• 0 7 5
%! 90 "0 ! 31 !7 88 8 "9 !# 3 8 < ";8 9 "5A 7 " " 70 *0 6 8 0 0*80 "6 ! " 7 30 77" 78 0 "8 9 ;" " 0 75
" 7"7 B 8 B0 88 0 "3 31 9 67 " $.5
1 " 98 ; "; ! 31 8 9 ! !/8 7" 3 "" ";5
!" #$ % &$'$((( ) *&$'$((((( $-0 6 $' ; %!0 " 8 8 33 " < 80 3 7 !3 " 3 67 "$5 %!8 B0 9 " 963 1 0 " 0 " 8 #; 6 "8 9 " ! ! " #8 " 5
%!8 B0 9 0 78 9 ; 6 ";" 3 "( # 0! 9! 0!9 8 3 " 7 ! "(C 3 ! 5%!8 9 " 8 8 66 " ; 3 7$'!0 ! 9 !8 " 9 008 " !0 3 ! 9 9 3 7 " ";" ;!6 5
A78 " ;8 8 " 3 ! 7 " "; "9 6 ! 6 "8 0 3 7 3 87" ! 68 "; ;" 3 0 " 0 8 0 3 633 D " "0 " ";3 " ;!6 ";8 8 5%! 6 0< 6 B " ";8 8 " 6 " 87" 31 * 7 ;" 9!"0 78 9 ! ! 3 ! 0 " 8 "; 7 8 " 5
%!; 6 " 97 " 0!" ; "9 8 "; " " ; 3 5 A"3 0 9!" 8 "; ! 8 38 " 8 0B 9 E ! 3 !; "! ; 7 " ! " ! 8 9 " "9 !# 5
1 0 77 7 "; " "7" 6 ; " 31 5:* " " !330 " F " "8 " ! ! 78 0 ! 6"0 78 9 !" 3 " ";5
G 9 1 0<" 9 ; ! 7" "7" 9 " 3 "; ! ; " $ 88 0 "5%! 6 "; <" " " !" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
"08 B0 "08 " 0 78 !" 0 " "8 ; 7! 6"0 "0 9 ! <! 5 "; 3" "7" ! 6" " 3 " !9 6 " !:" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
#" ! ! 78 ; "0 " 0 3 "76 38 8 9 ! " $<7 3 ! 31 3 74 "0 " 8 3 7 " 0 " "6 ! "3 7 " " 6 68 O8 0 P5
19 < " !4 "0 0 77" " ! 8 8 5"67 "! 667 7 8""26 < J 0 850 763 $'-0 6 $'5 " 88 " 9 6 6 7 <67 " 0 !/8 7" 3 "" "; "; ! *! 6 "8 3 !8 B0 :" "7" 7" 5
) ! "3 7 " ; "; !8 8 0 "6 03 79995 ; 3; 50 75 6 00 "; !/8 7" 3 "" ";96 99958 "" ";5"95; 5 5
? 3 !3
"" < 0 4 " "
" $-0 6 $'
4 0! " < # " 4 "0 - *$ A4%-#$(.
/ 4 " <
# 3 ! 88 0 "7 613 ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " 6 0 ! 31 3 7 " ! 388 " 9 !# Q ! 31 8 R5
? 9 6 9 ! "$167 " 88 0 " 6 " 8 # ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " " 31 7 9 !# R8 < 0 0 7 "5
) 9 ";0 " "9 ! <! ";$ 19 ! 9 ! 88 0 " " $. 0 " 9! ! ! 7 ;! 6 ! 7 6 3 8 < ";8 9 " "9 !# 5
/ ";$. 1 7 ! " " " 0 ! 0 6 9" # ;; # ;; " !4" 4 5%! 9 8 " 6 "< 0 "0 3 8 < ";8 9 "5%! 30 "0 &
• 00 ; " 0 0 " 9 <0 ""0 "@
• 8 " " "7" 78 0 @
• 6 3 "@
• 6 39 @
• @ "
• 0 7 5
%! 90 "0 ! 31 !7 88 8 "9 !# 3 8 < ";8 9 "5A 7 " " 70 *0 6 8 0 0*80 "6 ! " 7 30 77" 78 0 "8 9 ;" " 0 75
" 7"7 B 8 B0 88 0 "3 31 9 67 " $.5
1 " 98 ; "; ! 31 8 9 ! !/8 7" 3 "" ";5
!" #$ % &$'$((( ) *&$'$((((( $-0 6 $' ; %!0 " 8 8 33 " < 80 3 7 !3 " 3 67 "$5 %!8 B0 9 " 963 1 0 " 0 " 8 #; 6 "8 9 " ! ! " #8 " 5
%!8 B0 9 0 78 9 ; 6 ";" 3 "( # 0! 9! 0!9 8 3 " 7 ! "(C 3 ! 5%!8 9 " 8 8 66 " ; 3 7$'!0 ! 9 !8 " 9 008 " !0 3 ! 9 9 3 7 " ";" ;!6 5
A78 " ;8 8 " 3 ! 7 " "; "9 6 ! 6 "8 0 3 7 3 87" ! 68 "; ;" 3 0 " 0 8 0 3 633 D " "0 " ";3 " ;!6 ";8 8 5%! 6 0< 6 B " ";8 8 " 6 " 87" 31 * 7 ;" 9!"0 78 9 ! ! 3 ! 0 " 8 "; 7 8 " 5
%!; 6 " 97 " 0!" ; "9 8 "; " " ; 3 5 A"3 0 9!" 8 "; ! 8 38 " 8 0B 9 E ! 3 !; "! ; 7 " ! " ! 8 9 " "9 !# 5
1 0 77 7 "; " "7" 6 ; " 31 5:* " " !330 " F " "8 " ! ! 78 0 ! 6"0 78 9 !" 3 " ";5
G 9 1 0<" 9 ; ! 7" "7" 9 " 3 "; ! ; " $ 88 0 "5%! 6 "; <" " " !" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
"08 B0 "08 " 0 78 !" 0 " "8 ; 7! 6"0 "0 9 ! <! 5 "; 3" "7" ! 6" " 3 " !9 6 " !:" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
#" ! ! 78 ; "0 " 0 3 "76 38 8 9 ! " $<7 3 ! 31 3 74 "0 " 8 3 7 " 0 " "6 ! "3 7 " " 6 68 O8 0 P5
19 < " !4 "0 0 77" " ! 8 8 5"67 "! 667 7 8""26 < J 0 850 763 $'-0 6 $'5 " 88 " 9 6 6 7 <67 " 0 !/8 7" 3 "" "; "; ! *! 6 "8 3 !8 B0 :" "7" 7" 5
) ! "3 7 " ; "; !8 8 0 "6 03 79995 ; 3; 50 75 6 00 "; !/8 7" 3 "" ";96 99958 "" ";5"95; 5 5
? 3 !3
"" < 0 4 " "
" $-0 6 $'
0 ! " 1" " ; # " 4 "0 - *$ A4%-#$(.
/ 0 ! "
# 3 ! 88 0 "7 613 ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " 6 0 ! 31 3 7 " ! 388 " 9 !# Q ! 31 8 R5
? 9 6 9 ! "$167 " 88 0 " 6 " 8 # ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " " 31 7 9 !# R8 < 0 0 7 "5
) 9 ";0 " "9 ! <! ";$ 19 ! 9 ! 88 0 " " $. 0 " 9! ! ! 7 ;! 6 ! 7 6 3 8 < ";8 9 " "9 !# 5
/ ";$. 1 7 ! " " " 0 ! 0 6 9" # ;; # ;; " !4" 4 5%! 9 8 " 6 "< 0 "0 3 8 < ";8 9 "5%! 30 "0 &
• 00 ; " 0 0 " 9 <0 ""0 "@
• 8 " " "7" 78 0 @
• 6 3 "@
• 6 39 @
• @ "
• 0 7 5
%! 90 "0 ! 31 !7 88 8 "9 !# 3 8 < ";8 9 "5A 7 " " 70 *0 6 8 0 0*80 "6 ! " 7 30 77" 78 0 "8 9 ;" " 0 75
" 7"7 B 8 B0 88 0 "3 31 9 67 " $.5
1 " 98 ; "; ! 31 8 9 ! !/8 7" 3 "" ";5
!" #$ % &$'$((( ) *&$'$((((( $-0 6 $' ;' %!0 " 8 8 33 " < 80 3 7 !3 " 3 67 "$5 %!8 B0 9 " 963 1 0 " 0 " 8 #; 6 "8 9 " ! ! " #8 " 5
%!8 B0 9 0 78 9 ; 6 ";" 3 "( # 0! 9! 0!9 8 3 " 7 ! "(C 3 ! 5%!8 9 " 8 8 66 " ; 3 7$'!0 ! 9 !8 " 9 008 " !0 3 ! 9 9 3 7 " ";" ;!6 5
A78 " ;8 8 " 3 ! 7 " "; "9 6 ! 6 "8 0 3 7 3 87" ! 68 "; ;" 3 0 " 0 8 0 3 633 D " "0 " ";3 " ;!6 ";8 8 5%! 6 0< 6 B " ";8 8 " 6 " 87" 31 * 7 ;" 9!"0 78 9 ! ! 3 ! 0 " 8 "; 7 8 " 5
%!; 6 " 97 " 0!" ; "9 8 "; " " ; 3 5 A"3 0 9!" 8 "; ! 8 38 " 8 0B 9 E ! 3 !; "! ; 7 " ! " ! 8 9 " "9 !# 5
1 0 77 7 "; " "7" 6 ; " 31 5:* " " !330 " F " "8 " ! ! 78 0 ! 6"0 78 9 !" 3 " ";5
G 9 1 0<" 9 ; ! 7" "7" 9 " 3 "; ! ; " $ 88 0 "5%! 6 "; <" " " !" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
"08 B0 "08 " 0 78 !" 0 " "8 ; 7! 6"0 "0 9 ! <! 5 "; 3" "7" ! 6" " 3 " !9 6 " !:" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
#" ! ! 78 ; "0 " 0 3 "76 38 8 9 ! " $<7 3 ! 31 3 74 "0 " 8 3 7 " 0 " "6 ! "3 7 " " 6 68 O8 0 P5
19 < " !4 "0 0 77" " ! 8 8 5"67 "! 667 7 8""26 < J 0 850 763 $'-0 6 $'5 " 88 " 9 6 6 7 <67 " 0 !/8 7" 3 "" "; "; ! *! 6 "8 3 !8 B0 :" "7" 7" 5
) ! "3 7 " ; "; !8 8 0 "6 03 79995 ; 3; 50 75 6 00 "; !/8 7" 3 "" ";96 99958 "" ";5"95; 5 5
? 3 !3
"" < 0 4 " "
+&,+- , ..., / ,0 " " $-0 ",1 20 " " 2 "! 2 " 2$'5 0 6 $'
%G:/-#:
/ K 7
" 6 9 1! 6"8 8 "; ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " ! 31 3 7 "0$5
1 ; " 8 8 6 " 8 #; 3 8 < ";8 9 " 7 !8 < 0 0 7 " 3# "3 9 ";0 " "9 ! <! 9 ! 9 ! 88 0 " 0 " !7 6 3 8 < ";8 9 " "#5
/ ";$.10 E 7" 37 ! " " 3 7# ;; # ;; !4" 4 5%! 9 8 " 6 "< 0 " 8 7 3 8 9 " "0 "; 00 1 ": 0 0 9 <0 ""0 " 8 " " "7" 78 0 6 3 " 6 39 "0 7 5%! 90 "0 ! ! 31 !7 88 8 "#3 !8 9 "5
1 " 9 67 "; 8 8 !#/8 7" 3 "" "; 0 " 0 " 8 #; 6 "8 9 " 31 5 F " 3 ! :" "7" "" "; "7" 0 ":" "7" 7" 8 0 " 6 ";8 8 5
%!8 B0 9 0 78 ! " " 3 9 ; 6 ";" 6 ( # 0! ! 8 3 " 7 ! "(C 3 ! 5%!8 9 "9 60 " 0 " 8 " " ! "!0 3 !$'!0 C 3 ! 3 7 3 87" 5%! 9 8 ;" 3 0 " 0 8 0 3 633 D " "0 " "; B " ";8 8 5%! 6 0< 6 B " ";8 8 " 6 " 87" ! 31 3 6 ! 7 8 ";8 " 5
%!; 6 " ! 9 6 8 " " ; 3 " 97 " ;" " 0!" ;5#!" 8 "; ! 8 38 " ! " ! ; "! ; 7 " ! " !! ;! ; "! ; 7 ";8 9 " "# 0! * "; 0 E3 8 9 "5:* " " !330 " F " "8 " ! ! 78 0 ! 6"0 78 9 !" 3 " ";5
"08 B0 "08 " 0 78 !" 0 " "8 ; 7! 6"0 "0 9 ! <! 5 "; 3" "7" ! 6" " 3 " !9 6 " !" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5
" "3 7 "0 "6 03 79995 ; 3; 50 75 6 00 "; ! /8 7" 3 "" ";96 99958 "" ";5"95; 5 5! F 3 ! "3 7 " 9 ! 8 36 0< " !8 8 8 0 )::4' " 0 77" 0 "667 !"0 36 0<3 7567 "! 6 0 " ! "$'-0 6 $'5
!" #$ % &$'$((( ) *&$'$((((( ;$ -"0 !:" "7" 7" 8 ! 6"0 78 "67 !# /8 7" 3 "" "; 9 68 0 "86 0*! 6 "3 8 3 53 ! 88 " 3 !0 77" 7 < 3 7 67 "9 6 6 !"5
? "0
"" < 0 4 " "
" $-0 6 $' %-%G:/-44A: " 6 9 1! 6"8 8 "; ; 3 8 < ";8 9 " ! 3 1 3 7 "0$5 1 ; " 8 8 6 " 8 #; 3 8 < ";8 9 " 7 ! 8 < 0 0 7 " 3# "3 9 ";0 " "9 ! <! 9 ! 9 ! 88 0 " 0 " !7 6 3 8 < ";8 9 " "#5 / ";$.10 E 7" 37 ! " " 3 7# ;; # ;; !4" 4 5%! 9 8 " 6 "< 0 "8 7 3 8 9 " "0 "; 00 1 ": 0 0 9 <0 ""0 " 8 " " "7" 78 0 6 3 " 6 39 "0 7 5%! 90 "0 ! ! 31 !7 88 8 "#3 !8 9 "5 1 " 9 67 "; 8 8 !#/8 7" 3 "" "; 0 " 0 " 8 #; 6 "8 9 " 31 5 F " 3 !:" "7" "" "; "7" 0 ":" "7" 7" 8 0 " 6 ";8 8 5 %!8 B0 9 0 78 ! " " 3 9 ; 6 ";" 6 ( # 0! ! 8 3 " 7 ! "(C 3 ! 5%!8 9 "9 60 " 0 " 8 " " ! "!0 3 !$'!0 C 3 ! 3 7 3 87" 5 %! 9 8 ;" 3 0 " 0 8 0 3 633 D " "0 " "; B " ";8 8 5%! 6 0< 6 B " ";8 8 " 6 " 87" ! 31 3 6 ! 7 8 ";8 " 5 %!; 6 " ! 9 6 8 " " ; 3 " 97 ";" " 0!" ;5#!" 8 "; ! 8 38 " ! " ! ; "! ; 7 " ! " ! ! ;! ; "! ; 7 ";8 9 " "# 0! * ";0 E3 8 9 "5 :* " " !330 " F " "8 " ! ! 78 0 ! 6"0 78 9 !" 3 " ";5 "08 B0 "08 " 0 78 !" 0 " "8 ; 7! 6"0 "0 9 ! <! 5 "; 3" "7" ! 6" " 3 " !9 6 " !" "7" 7" 8 00 " 6 ";" <"5 " "3 7 "0 "6 03 79995 ; 3; 50 75 6 00 "; !/8 7" 3 "" ";96 99958 "" ";5"95; 5 5! F 3 ! "3 7 " 9 ! 8 36 0< " !8 8 8 0 )::4' " 0 77" 0 "6 67 !"0 36 0<3 7567 "! 6 0 " ! "$'-0 6 $'5 -"0 !:" "7" 7" 8 ! 6"0 78 "67 !# /8 7" 3 "" "; 9 68 0 "86 0*! 6 "3 8 3 53 ! 88 " 3 !0 77" 7 < 3 7 67 "9 6 6 !"5 ? "0 "" < !